Monday, February 16, 2015

Mixing Bowl Catholicism

Mixing Bowl Catholicism

Another rotten program is called JustFaith which is almost utterly devoid of any ACTUAL Catholic theology- Michael Voris
When Micahel Voris refers to actual Catholic theology he is referring to the irrational one which has come into the Church in 1949. This theology is based on a false premise, which produces a false conclusion.He then uses this bad theology to interpret Vatican Council II and other Church documents.
Lay Catholics, world wide are not aware, that the Vatican is using an irrationality to 'develop' the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This developed version of the dogma, is accepted by the Vatican.
However if a Catholic layperson did not use this irrationality then extra ecclesiam nulla salus would be traditional. This would be opposed by the Enemies of the Church.
So no one talks about this.
Michael Voris too, perhaps does not understand this and nor does John Vennari and the SSPX.
-Lionel Andrades

Without the Marchetti inference Vatican Council II does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors.

traditional-catholic-pius-ix -2The 150th Anniversary of the Syllabus of Errors - Special Edition
By John Vennari
Ratzinger affirms elsewhere in the same book, “There can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism but cannot be the last stage.”

Yes there can be no return to the Syllabus for those who use the irrational inference of Cardinal Francesco Marchetti to interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II.
Without the Marchetti inference Vatican Council II does not contradict the Syllabus.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger accepted Marchetti's theories:-
1.There is known salvation outside the Church in 1949.
2.Those saved with the baptism of desire ( implicit desire) or invincible ignorance and die without the baptism of water, are objectively known in 1949.
3.These objectice cases are explicit exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by Fr.Leonard Feeney in 1949.
4.The dogma has changed or evolved.
All this was accepted by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops.So Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) is a break with the Syllabus of Errors.
Site logo____________________

It is always amusing to see Modernist churchmen, who built their careers on the alleged “changeableness” of certain doctrine, solemnly declare that their favorite Modernist tenet cannot change: “There can be no return to the
Syllabus”. In other words, “There can be no change to the countersyllabus”. Ratzinger would not be open to a counter-countersyllabus....
Yes since an irrational inference is the basis of the new theology and the liberals and traditionalists are not aware of it.So there cannot be a return to the Syllabus, with this irrational proposition and conclusion approved by the 1949 Holy Office.
Stressing the deadly seriousness of the matter, Msgr. Fenton noted in 1960 that a man who took the Oath Against Modernism, and who then promoted Modernism himself, or allowed it to be promoted, “would mark himself not only as a sinner against the Catholic Faith but also as a common perjurer.”
With this error the Nicene Creed 'I believe in one baptism for the forgivess of sin ' has been changed to 'I believe in three or more KNOWN baptisms for the forgivessness of sin'.

He who takes the Oath Against Modernism swears solemnly before God: “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 explanation (
eodem sensu eodemque sententia). 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 dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has evolved for the SSPX since the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, refer to known cases in the present times and they are known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water. Those who say there are no known exceptions are pejoratively criticized as 'Feeneyities' by the SSPX.So there has been a change and it has been accepted.
At the end of the Oath, he make this solemn Promise before God Himself: “I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God, and these holy Gospels of God which I touch with my hand."
There is no way that a person who holds to the counter syllabus of Vatican II can claim to have kept the Faith

If he avoids the Marchetti theology, Vatican Council II does not contradict the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus..

in the same meaning and in the same explanation” as the Church always held. There is no way that someone who accepts the Council’s new program of ecumenism and religious liberty can claim to have “guarded inviolate”, and “in no way deviated” from the clear teachings of the pre-Vatican II popes regarding religious indifferentism and the Social Kingship of Christ.
Without the Marchetti Inference Vatican Council II is traditional on other religions and ecumenism.


As already noted, both Cardinal Ratzinger and Yves Congar stated openly, as if it’s something to be proud of, that Vatican II is a counter syllabus – that it says the opposite of key teachings from pre-Vatican II Popes – and thus advance a Modernist tenet.
It is a counter Syllabus with the 1949 irrationality.
-Lionel Andrades

The theology of the Magisterium has gone off the rails. It is bad theology to assume there are objective cases on earth, in the present times, of people who are in Heaven

Comments from the blog post. 1
George Brenner said...
Lionel,you continue to completely miss the point. Church teaching on Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance are sound and require obedience to their teaching and as a wise friend just posted today
So where and when have I denied it? Please refer me to it.
They are possibilities. I have said this many times.

Obviously we do not know of a case in 2015. This would be known only to God. So defacto there is no such case.
St.Emerentiana is deceased. So she is not a known exception to the dogma in 2015. I cannot say that every one does not need the baptism of desire in 2015 because St.Emerentiana died without the baptism of water in the past.This would be irrational thinking.

So I accept the possibility of being saved with the baptism of desire or blood. However they are not relevant to the interpretation of Fr.Feeney. The Letter of the Holy Office assumed that they are exceptions. This was a factual mistake. How can they be exceptions to all needing faith and baptism for salvation in 2015, when we do not know and cannot know any such exception? An exception must exist in our reality to be an exception.


: "If the doctrine has been abused,
This doctrine on the baptism of desire and blood and invincible ignorance is not relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I am not referring to the theology of these doctrines.

and it clearly has been,
 When the SSPX for example assume that these cases are objectively known in the present times, then it is an abuse. This could also be the error of the FSSP Monsignor you spoke to .
Since he cannot say that Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism for salvation and so all non Catholics need to convert to avoid Hell.

For him there are objective exceptions to the dogma, in Vatican Council II, for example, LG 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience)

 it is not the fault of the doctrine, but of weak men, for the baptism of desire does NOT render the sacrament of Baptism “optional” or “unnecessary”, neither does it turn the words of our Lord in John 3:5 into a “metaphor” for Baptism, and neither does it deny that true and natural water is absolutely necessary for a valid sacrament.
 'Neither does it deny that true and natural water is absolutely necessary for a valid sacrament.' Yes it does not deny it, only when you are aware that there are no objective cases in the present times. So there are no objective exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Church with the baptism of water.
The Holy Office made an objective error in 1949 and this has been accepted by the SSPX and others.

Go ahead and shake your fist at Pope St. Pius V, Gregory XIII, Clement XIII, Innocent III, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV
Why them? They have only mentioned implicit desire and being saved in ignorance. They have not stated that these cases are exceptions to the dogma. This was the wrong inference of the Holy Office Letter in 1949.


and Pius XII;
Pope Pius XII did not correct the error in the Letter of the Holy Office during his pontificate and neither did he lift the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney. He let the error persist in the Catholic Church.


shake your fist at the greatest Doctors (and saints) of the Church to include Augustine, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, Bernard of Clairveaux, Albert the Great, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, Peter Canisius, Robert Bellarmine and Alphonsus de Liguori;
None of them have said that there are known exceptions to the dogma.
After 1949 to justify the error, theologians began interpreting these saints using the Marchetti Inference i.e there are visible exceptions to the dogma of persons saved in invincible ignorance etc.

None of these saints have said that salvation in Heaven is objectively visible on earth and these cases are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
This new doctrine came into the Church only in 1949.


 shake your fist at each and every of the scholastic theologians and manualists – not a single one of whom “denied” the baptism of blood and desire,
They did not have to deny the baptism of desire and blood. They could accept it.Since the baptism of desire and blood are not exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

So one can affirm the baptism of desire and blood AND ALSO the strict interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

If there were objective, known cases in 2015 then you could not affirm the strict interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.


and every one of whom who weighed in on this topic affirmed the same doctrine"
Yes but with a difference.
For me these cases are possibilities known only to God.So they cannot be exceptions to the dogma.
For others these cases are exceptions to the dogma, so they must be objective for them in the present times. This is an irrational proposition. To build ones theology on this irrational premise creates irrational theology. It is bad theology.

Yet this is the familiar Marchetti theology used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.


Father Feeney denied that Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible could happen on earth OR in Heaven.
He denied there was salvation outside the Church.
 How can the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to salvation outside the Church when objectively we do not know of any case?

You continually ignore that fact in your hybrid interpretation. You also dictate how God judges when you say that He must baptize with water.
This is what the dogma says. This teaching is repeated in Vatican Council II (LG 14,AG 7).I interpret them without visible and known to us baptism of desire etc.


Church teaching on Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance have nothing to do with teaching all that they must enter, stay or return to the Catholic Church for Salvation and be baptized with water.

This idea of exceptions has no place in the discussion by you OR those that abuse the truth.
It has not place in the discussion.It is irrelevant. We agree here!


Wolves in sheep's clothing have always been with us. From your posts I see that you are moving towards the truth but still misunderstand that which the Church teaches versus the abuses in what the Church teaches which are sickening and disobedient to Jesus command.
The theology of the Magisterium has gone off the rails.
 It is bad theology to assume there are objective cases on earth, in the present times, of people who are in Heaven.
- Lionel Andrades

February 14, 2015

Every one needs to be a Catholic : Those who are taught or not taught, those who know or do not know about the Church, will be decided by Jesus