Thursday, February 19, 2015

For Bishop Robert C. Morlino, Louie Verrecchio and Robert Sungenis the Church's teaching on marriage, the family and salvation has changed

Comment by Lynda, on Harvesting the Fruits of Vatican Council II

I hope so, as Michael Voris and Church Militant come across as not credible, in fact, plain mad, bizarre, as they daily discuss the crisis in the Church and what to do, whilst wholly ignoring the blatant and continual and major attacks on faith and morals from the pope, all available in the public square. The time to leave denial behind is long past due.
 Profile picture for Louie Verrecchio
Lynda  in  comments  on Louie Verrecchio's Harvesting the Fruits of Vatican Council II does not mention that because the Feeneyite, strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is not accepted by her and other traditionalists, it is possible for Catholics to marry non Catholics, and it is not considered adultery.This was a change in 'faith and morals'.Since bishops and priests too like her and Verrecchio, do not accept the Feeneyite version of the dogma, they  will canonically approve an interfaith marriage as if it is a Catholic Sacrament.Louie Verrecchio can receive the Eucharist at Mass now, even though his wife is Jewish and not a practising Catholic. He has canonical approval from a liberal bishop who offers Holy Mass in English, in the USA.
I mentioned in a blogpost yesterday that what was formerly considered adultery was possible for Louie since the U.S bishops reject the dogma as interpreted by the Church Fathers, Church Councils, popes, saints and Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.They also reject Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) in its literal sense.It agrees with the strict interpretation of the dogma.
If Verrecchio accepted this traditional understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( i.e there are  no known exceptions) he would have to admit that he was living in adultery.It is only the Marchetti premise which prevents him accepting extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known in the Church before 1949. He now is supported by 'the Church'.
It is also because of the Marchetti premise which he uses in theology, that he keeps  interpreting  Vatican Council II as a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It becomes a break with the traditional Catholic teaching on other religions and Christian communities.He cannot conceive of another way to interpret the Council. He is not aware of the irregular premise he reasons with.
Similarly Lynda would say 'but the Holy Office said...about Fr.Leonard Feeney'.Even 'the SSPX agrees with me and Louie'.So they reason how could they be wrong? Surely the magisterium could not make an objective error in the Fr.Feeney case?
What if the magisterium was wrong? If the magisterium was wrong and there really was no known salvation outside the Church , if those saved with the baptism of desire are unknown to Louie and Lynda in 2015 , then outside the Church there really would be no known salvation and Louie's wife would be outside. She would be outside the Church and on the way to Hell.Since, she is formally not a Catholic.Also Louie would have been living in adultery.
Now he lives with a non Catholic wife and receives the Eucharist at Mass.This is approved by bishops who reject the Feeneyite version of the dogma and give the Eucharist to people in mortal sin.They would be ready to regularise a marriage with a non Catholic.In Canada they do it even with Muslims who are invited to a ritual in the Catholic Church. The Catholic in the marriage with the Muslim goes to a ritual in a mosque which says she has converted.However the Catholic Church does not expect this of the Muslim male  in the interfaith marriage.Since the bishops in Canada do not accept the Feeneyite version of the dogma but are satisfied with the new Marchetti-Cushingite version.There is a simple new exercise they go through with, in the Catholic Church, with the couple.The Catholic spouse's family attends.It is not a Sacrament.No mention is made of adultery.
Louie Verrecchio like the apologist Robert Sungenis, married a non Catholic. Sungenis' wife was Protestant. They both interpret Vatican Council II with the new theology.It comes from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. In this theology an irrational premise is used to create an irrational conclusion.The result is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition in general. So they accept the dogma with the irrational proposition. This is also done by the Vatcian  magisterium, the USCCB bishops and the SSPX.This is how Verrecchio and Sungenis interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church i.e God is not limited to the Sacraments (1257).
Verrecchio and Sungenis, like Bishop Robert C. Morlino, Bishop of Madison,Wisconsin,USA would say that the Church's teaching on the divorced and re-married cannot change. Yet the Church's teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus has changed for them. Bishop Morlino would regularise a marriage of a non Catholic with a Catholic.He says 'pastorally' it can be done, unlike in the past.This is also the pastoral approach to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So while Bishop Morlino would pastorally regularise the marriage of a Jew or Protestant with a Catholic he would pastorally not be willing to accept the Cardinal Kasper or Cardinal Marx changes for the family.The bishop says doctrines cannot change. Nor can they be changed in practise. Yet on salvation he has accepted the change in doctrine and practise , which come to us with the Cardinal Marchetti inference. This change has also been accepted by Verrecchio and Sungenis, and many traditionalists,  with regard to the strict interpretation of the dogma on salvation.
Bishop Robert Morlino says in the EWTN interview someone living in adultery cannot receive the Eucharist, with respect to the 2015 Synod.Yet  he does not consider a non Catholic married to a Catholic as being in adultery.Since the dogma has changed for him! Raymond Arroyo his interviewer, agrees with him. This is the official position of EWTN , his employer.
They all will  interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the past.They will not talk about Marchetti's Inference which has made it possible for the Council to be interpreted in this way.Conversely, if the Council would not be a break with the past Louie Verrecchio would have been living in sin.
He would then be a Feeneyite and would not be allowed to speak at SSPX conferences by the SSPX , and the liberal Left.He would also be saying that Vatican Council II is Feeneyite and the Catechism 1257 and Marchetti (1949) made an objective error.
-Lionel Andrades
February 18, 2015
Louie Verrecchio's wife is not Catholic, he interprets the dogma on exclusive salvation with an irrational premise and so it is not a sin for him

The contents of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 are irrational, false ,non traditional and fantasy theology.It is a break with faith and reason

I have received an e-mail yesterday which I appreciate. I am glad we can discuss this issue.I would welcome  further comments and questions.My response is in red type.
1. It is Catholic Church teaching that someone can positively be saved by Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible ignorance when these conditions find themselves pleasing to God (Lionel: Are you saying without the baptism of water this is possible ? Then it would be a Church teaching with contradicts a dogma issued by the Church ; it would contradict another Church teaching.)
2. It is a matter of fact that these conditions have happened in the past and most likely will occur in the present and future. (It is a possibility that they have occurred under the right conditions. You do not personally know anyone as such,  as a matter of fact. Since you would not know for instance, if St. Emerentiana received the baptism of water  before or after she died physically.The Church has not said anything on this.) You are absolutely correct in saying that they are not known to us while a person is alive on earth.( I refer to those not known to us only when it is assumed that the deceased who lived in the past , who may have  died with the baptism of desire, blood or in invincible ignorance, are exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in the present times. Only then! ) Saints have been confirmed by the Church and it is not for you to question. (That they have been confirmed it is not an issue.However If you infer here that they physically exist in 2015 and are an exception to all needing faith and baptism for salvation today, then it is an issue). They are known to us after their death proving Church teaching, not that the Church must prove anything. (I accept the Church teachings on the saints.However if you infer that a saint of the past is an exception in the present, to the teachings on salvation, according to Fr.Leonard Feeney, I would continue to say that this is irrational). What the Church declares as worthy of being believed must be accepted by the faithful.(In general yes. However Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani made an objective error, a factual error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. With this error he contradicted Church teaching before 1949. He also wrongly suggested that there were precedents in magisterial documents to support his view .This was false.

3. When Salvation occurs in these conditions they are not exceptions but most assuredly are welcomed into Heaven by God as Catholics.
(Yes and the right conditions would include the baptism water.)
  4. it is not for you or anyone to say how God welcomes these souls into Paradise for God is not bound by his sacraments. (The dogma tells us that God is bound to the Sacraments.Cardinal Marchetti made an objective error when he inferred that there is salvation outside the Church and so God is not bound to the Sacraments. He did not know of any person saved in 1949 without the baptism of water to make this irrational inference.He inferred the deceased who are now in Heaven, saved without the baptism of water, were known to him on earth, to be exceptions to the dogma. This nonsense is the basis for his new theology.It  has been accepted by the International Theological Commission and the magisterium of Pope Benedict XVI. This error has been incorporated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1257) and has conditioned Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus etc. These documents issued by Pope John  Paul II use the ambigous  language of the Marchetti letter. The first part of the Letter supports Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine and the second part contradicts him, with alleged known salvation outside the Church.
Also Catholics are encouraged to marry non Catholics (Jews, Muslims, Protestants etc) without informing the Catholic spouse that he or she is  living in adultery and would go to Hell. Since their non Catholic spouse is on the way to Hell and is not a Catholic according to the original dogma.
This liberalism, has come into Catholic family life  with the Marchetti heresy which has been accepted by 'the Church'.)

5. Father Feeney denied Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and that Invincible Ignorance could possibly lead a person to Salvation. (This is the interpretation of the liberals, supporting the Masonic agenda.
He denied there was salvation outside the Church. There are no known cases of any one saved with the Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance outside the Church in 1949. You do not know of anyone  today (2015).Instead cardinals Marchetti and Cushing were saying there were known exceptions. The cardinals were in heresy. They were also irrational. They were 'the Church' at that time. )
He was Saintly in teaching the faith to all but wrong and disobedient on this issue. You have never admitted that this was the case. (I have continually been saying that it is irrational, heretical and non traditional  to say there are known exceptions to the dogma.This was an ecclesiastical lie. This was the heresy of the Holy Office 1949 and not that of Fr.Leonard Feeney.The magisterium made an objective mistake here.The Church should issue a correction in 2015.)
6. I would be very careful in saying that Pope Pius XII did not understand or was guilty of error with regards to the letter of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office and its aftermath. (He did not correct the Letter, he did not lift the unjust excommunication, he did not excommunicate Cardinal Richard Cushing,he did not say all Jews and other non Catholics in Boston and elsewhere need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no exceptions, he did not correct the wrong reports in the Boston secular media which indicated that the Church  had changed its position on the traditional dogma.These were acts of omission and commission) The truth in the contents were most definitely not obeyed by many to undermine the faith and teach error That has been and continues to be a tragedy. That abuse is a totally different subject You can not attack the contents (The contents in the Letter are irrational, false,non traditional and fantasy theology.It is a break with faith and reason.) but certainly are accurate on their rampant abuse and denial of Church teaching on No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and Baptism by water.
(You agree with me here!?)

7. The Catholic Church declares , defines and teaches and
embraces that those who
> attain holiness that is pleasing to God through Baptism of
> Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance shall be
> saved. (and we don't know who they are in the present times and so this is not relevant to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,the 'rigorist interpretation'.) Furthermore let it be known to all for all time by our
> solemn and highest decree that the Catholic Church has bound
> herself as she is bound by Jesus that all people must be
> taught and are commanded to enter, remain or
> return to the Catholic Church and be baptized with water in
> order to attain Salvation. (Agreed!) There are no circumstances in which this decree may be modified, changed or disobeyed at any point
in time. (Since this was the dogmatic teaching and has not been contradicted by any Church document before 1949 and which is empirically, objectively, in real life not contradicted today (2015) since we do not know of any exceptions )
-Lionel Andrades