Wednesday, April 1, 2015

John Lamont, Thomas Pink, Joseph Shaw remain politically correct and keep their mandatum to teach theology

John Lamont, Thomas Pink and Joseph Shaw would  lose their mandatum to teach theology if they said there are no physically known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Cardinal- Grand Chancellor announced that he was not renewing the mandatum of a professor of theology in Chile.1
If John Lamont (Australia) and Thomas Pink and Joseph Shaw (England), Catholic professors of theology, state that there are no physically visible exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus they could be banned from teachng at Catholic universities.So they remain politically correct and promote a lie.
If they spoke the truth they would be saying that Vatican Council II does not contradict the centuries old interpretation on outside the Church there is no salvation.Since there cannot be any exception.Invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not exceptions.
In other words there is no known salvation outside the Church in 2015.So  all need to formally convert in the present times to avoid Hell.We do not know any one saved with the baptism of desire this year.
Instead these three Catholic professors of theology, who are quoted on traditionalist blogs,  infer that there is salvation outside the Church and this salvation is defacto known to us in the present times.So there are exceptions in Vatican Council II to the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is their  political Left position.
For them the deceased now saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance in the past are known to us in the present times to be exceptions.
 Since they are personally known to them they become objective, seen in the flesh exceptions to Tradition and especially the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.All do not need to convert.This is the fantasy theology they teach.
This was approved in the Archdiocese of Sydney for John Lamont by Cardinal George Pell, the former Archbishop of Sydney.
This is the teaching approved by the Vatican for cardinals and bishops in Australia and England.The bishops pay the piper and so call the tune.They have to teach an irrational ecclesiology to keep their teaching  jobs.
They are teaching irrational doctrine but this is accepted by the Magisterium.It is with this irrational theology that the Magisterium wants the SSPX, Franciscans of the Immaculate and the CMRI to interpret Vatican Council II.So reconciliation in the Church has been blocked.Since the approved doctrine is supported by irrational observations.Observations  like physically being able to see people in Heaven.2
This is a reminder for me of how Fr.Leonard Feeney and four Catholic professors of theology were expelled from Boston College.They refused to say there are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on salvation.They could not see the dead.The Emperor had no clothes.
Since 1949 the mandatum is given at Catholic universities to professors who allege they can physically see people in Heaven, in the present times, saved without the baptism of water.So they infer that there is salvation outside the Church.
It is upon this irrationality that Jesuits from the Gregorian University, chosen by Pope Francis, are to create a theology to justify giving the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried.Since now there is salvation outside the Church for them, and so the dogma defined three times has been contradicted. So other teachings of the Church can also be contradicted.Cardinal Walter Kasper said in an interview that if the Church's ecclesiology can be changed why cannot the Synod make changes in the area of the family and the divorced and remarried being given Holy Communion.
There was of course no comment from Lamont, Pink and Shaw.They accept the new ecclesiology.They teach it. -Lionel  Andrades
 
1
 
2.
New hope for SSPX-Vatican doctrinal talks : For Cardinal Vallini and the Rome Vicariate there are no exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma on salvation
 ____________________________




Traditionalists will still be criticized but their opponents will not be able to use Vatican Council against them http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/traditionalists-will-still-be.html

 
If you consider the Holy Office or Fr.Leonard Feeney in heresy determines how you interpret Vatican Council II http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/if-you-consider-holy-office-or.html







The dogma tells us all need to be formal members of the Church and objectively we do not and cannot know of any exception.

 This was a factual mistake made by Cardinal Burke and the late Fr.John Hardon.Fr.Hardon like Cardinal Marchetti makes a wrong inference in the article.
Comments from the blog post 1
Lionel:
I do not mean it in a theological sense but - literally.
I mean it in a physical sense.
We physically cannot see any person saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.
The case does not exist. The person does not exist in our reality.
I cannot meet someone saved as such today.
So how can there be any exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma? It's a zero case.
____________
Anonymous:
So that none of us would be presumptuous in judging with certainty that which only the Eternal Trinity judges and knows.
Lionel:
For us there is no case to judge.There cannot be any physical, known case.
___________________

And because it is a fact that it is possible, under certain conditions, that some could and can not obtain Baptism by water.
Lionel:
Yes theoretically but practically we do not know any such case.
They would have to be known for them to be exceptions to the traditional teaching of the dogma.
The dogma tells us all need to be formal members of the Church and objectively we do not and cannot know of any exception.
_____________________

Baptism by water is the ordinary means in the economy of Salvation, but the Trinity may grant through baptism of desire the same fruits as an extra-ordinary means, if the person has no possibility of receiving Baptism of water.
Lionel:
If God did choose this we would not know about it. So how could these cases be relevant to all needing to enter the Church with no exceptions in 2015?
It has no link with the dogma.This was the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which was not corrected.
_______________________

It seems quite clear and fully coherent.
Lionel:
I am not referring to theology.
The theology of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was built upon a factual error. The theology assumes that the dead who are now saved in Heaven, were there without the baptism of water and these cases are presently known to us.So it is inferred that they are exceptions to the dogmatic teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
-Lionel Andrades
1
Cardinal Raymond Burke approved the article. Fr.Hardon like Cardinal Marchetti makes this wrong inference in the article http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/cardinal-raymond-burke-approved-article.html
 



National Catholic Register Fires Patrick Archbold

 

Pat Archbold
 
Patrick Archbold is co-founder of Creative Minority Report, a Catholic website that puts a refreshing spin on the intersection of religion, culture, and politics. When not writing, Patrick is director of information technology at a large international logistics company. Patrick, his wife Terri, and their five children reside in Long Island, N.Y.
_______________________________

 
It is with some regret that I must inform you that my employment as a contributing blogger at the National Catholic Register has been terminated.

Yup, they fired me.

I am grateful for the five years I spent as a contributor to the Register, the online presence of which has grown immensely during my tenure and that of the other original group of contributors. There is a lot to be proud of there. I stuck with them in hard times even when they were completely broke and it looked like they would blink out of existence, only to be saved at the last minute. Alas and alack, our time together has come to an end.

There are many things I could say about why this happened and how and maybe one day I will say more. But for now, suffice it to say that my particular contributions have not been well received over the last year or so and that has lead to increasing tension. I suppose that is plain to anyone with eyes to see. I will note that upon my departure, among the top 10 posts for the last 3 weeks, you will find three of my contributions.

I am proud of my writing at the Register. I feel I have been consistent in my approach to writing and the topics I cover. I think I brought a viewpoint to the Register that is otherwise not well represented among their stable of good writers. The Church has been going through some tough times and as a consequence I have sometimes tried to tackle some tough issues. I have always tried to do so fairly and as a loyal son of the Church. I will leave it to others to decide whether the Register is better off without my writing or viewpoint.

Most of all, I want to thank all of you that supported my writing there over the years by clicking on links from CMR. I will forever grateful for it and I hope you will continue to support my brother Matthew as he continues as a contributor there.
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2015/03/saying-goodbye-to-national-catholic.html
____________________________

The National Catholic Register is hiding the truth from Catholics.It does not also want a reconciliation with the SSPX and the sedevacantists CMRI.Instead it is promoting the ideology of the Left, who must be censoring the NCR.So Pat must have been a thorn in the flesh.
NCR is not willing to say that there are no known exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
If they did admit this then the CDF and the Left would not be able to claim that Vatican Council II contradicts traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.They would have no references in the Council for their present propaganda.
For political reasons the NCR is selling out on the Faith and the Truth.

Dan Burke,Jeanette DeMelo' s NCR Editorial policy promotes a liehttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/dan-burkejeanette-demelo-s-ncr.html

Cardinal Gerhard Muller's doctrinal error was placed on the Vatican website and found on Edward Pentin's webpage.The editors at the National Catholic Register approved it
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/cardinal-gerhard-mullers-doctrinal.html

Bishop Robert J.Baker approves the irrational interpretation of EWTN/NCR speakers and writers ? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/bishop-robert-jbaker-approves.html

Mark Shea blocks comment,discussion on National Catholic Register error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/mark-shea-blocks-commentdiscussion-on.html

Cardinal Muller's doctrinal error placed on the Vatican website!
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/cardinal-mullers-doctrinal-error-placed.html

Still no denial from Edward Pentin
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/still-no-denial-from-edward-pentin.html

Archbishop Thomas Gullickson, John Martigioni and Fr.Rev. Fr.P. Stefano Visintin OSB, Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Pontifical University St.Anselm agree with me : there are no visible exceptions.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/archbishop-thomas-gullickson-john.html

Fr.Marco Hausmann FSSP confirms: there are no physically visible cases of the baptism of desire http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/frmarco-hausmann-fssp-confirms-there.html
-Lionel Andrades
 

New hope for SSPX-Vatican doctrinal talks : For Cardinal Vallini and the Rome Vicariate there are no exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma on salvation

Cardinal Vallini and the Auxiliary bishops of Rome agree with me that the Catholic Church affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since they do not know of any exceptions. Those who are saved in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire are not physically visible and personally known to them.
There has been no denial from the Vicariate in Rome to the following blog post which I e-mailed the Vicariate and also officials at the Vatican Press Office and Ecclesia Dei.
March 30, 2015
CATHOLIC CHURCH AFFIRMS STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS : Cardinal Vallini and Auxiliary bishops of Rome
 
They agree we cannot meet someone in Rome who will be saved without 'faith and baptism'.There is no such case today. There cannot be any such case in the future and they personally do not know of any such case in the past who will be an exception today to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation.
They agree 'The Catholic Church's ecclesiology is still exclusivist.Since there cannot be exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The references to invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire and LG 8,NA 2,UR 3 etc, all examples of persons saved but invisible on earth, are possibilities but not exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma, the Feeneyite version.'
 
They agree that salvation in Heaven is not visible, known, explicit in the present times. This is common knowledge.
 
They acknowledge that the Italian Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani made an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.He assumed there were physically visible exceptions.
 
There has been no correction or clarification from Ecclesia Dei too, to whom the report has been sent.
 
The report said Cardinal Vallini and the Vicariate's view would also be supported by Archbishop Guido Pozzo at Ecclesia Dei. Now there would not be doctrinal differences with the SSPX, since Vatican Council II ( without the irrationality) is pro-SSPX and pro- Tradition on other religions and ecumenism.
 
Doctrinally the Society of St.Pius X, the Franciscans of the Immaculate and the sedevacantists Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI- Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae ) can hold their traditional position on non-Catholics needing to formally convert for salvation  and an ecumenism of return and also accept Vatican Council II (without the irrational premise of being physically able to see persons in Heaven). 
 
The Cardinal Vicar of Rome and his Auxiliary bishops cannot physically know any exceptions to the centuries-old interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation.This  can be confirmed, by journalists, calling up the Rome Vicariate. 
 
This agreement of the Vicariate and Ecclesia Dei,  is important for the CDF-SSPX doctrinal talks.It means there are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the SSPX 2012 General Chapter Statement(GCS), a doctrinal statement, which affirmed extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions. Doctrinally, the CDF cannot cite any references in Vatican Council II to reject the GCS on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
-Lionel Andrades

Jacobins to Punish French Bishop for Daring to Describe Abortion in Accurate Terms

Jacobins to Punish French Bishop for Daring to Describe Abortion in Accurate Terms

















Edit: Hollande's France really is fast becoming a joke unto itself.
His Excellency, Bishop Luc Ravel,a Catholic bishops in the French Military Ordinariate is to be "punished" by the French Ministry of Defense, for his writings. He has also been told to cease using any emblems identifying himself with the army. The bishop apparently in his words and actions, contradicts "republican values". No doubt, as a good Catholic he does. But then, so did the thousands who were slaughtered by the Revolution...

The bishop wrote:

"...Christians feel shackled between two ideologies. On the one hand an ideology that is a caricature of God, which has contempt for man. On the other hand, an ideology that manipulates man, despising God. On the one hand, we have those who are declared and known: the terrorists of the bomb, the Prophet's avengers. On the other hand, we have terrorists of thought, the proponents of secularism, the admirers of the Republic. In what camp is a Christian to find himself"?

"We do not want to be held hostage by Islamists, but we also do not want to be slaves of correct thought. Islamic ideology has led to 17 victims in France, but the ideology of thinking correctly [political correctness] creates annually two hundred thousand victims in the womb of the mother.Abortion has become a fundamental right and a weapon of mass destruction "

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.it/2015/03/jacobins-to-punish-french-bishop-for.html
 wordpress.com/2015/03/31/faithful-french-bishop-punished-for-being-catholic/

No correction has to be made in the text.I am affirming Vatican Council II when I hold the rigorist interpretation of the dogma

Lionel:
So you have not been able to cite any text from Quanto Conficiamur Moerore or the Council of Trent which says there are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
There is no text which says that salvation in Heaven is visible to us on earth to be exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation.
There is no text in the two documents which says being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire must excude the baptism of water.
There is no text which mentions there being known salvation outside the Church.

So there are no exceptions mentioned in these two documents to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma.
__________________________
 
"Please cite the text.
I don't think it says any where that there are known exceptions to the rigorist
interpretation of the dogma."
Let's step back. Since you make such a big deal about the 1949 "factual error,"
I am assuming that what you mean by the "rigorist position" is theone condemned by Suprema haec sacra, the position of the
"Cambridge-ites", that one must be a visible member of the Church tobe saved. That is what I have meant when I have said the "rigorist interpretation." If that is not what you mean, then please clarify.
Lionel:
Yes.
This was the understanding of the dogma before 1949. This was how St.Maximillian Kolbe understood it in the 1930's.
____________________
So, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore says "There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace."
Lionel:
Yes and the pope does not say that this is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
___________________
 
"He mentions the man in the forest in invincible ignorance."
He does, but he also explicitly speaks of the baptism of desire: "And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly." (Summa, III, q.68, a.2).
And even in his example of the man in the forest, he says "God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or by sending a teacher to him." By including, "by inspiration" the Angelic doctor rejects the rigorist position as I have defined it above, as such a person would still not be baptized with water.
Lionel:
1. He says that God will send a preacher to him. Obviously the preacher will speak about the Faith and baptise him.
2. Assuming that this person went to Heaven without the baptism of water, as you suggest, how is this case an explicit, defacto exception to the dogma on April 1,2015? How would it be relevant to all needing faith and baptism for salvation to avoid Hell today.It's a hypothetical case for us.
Similarly how could this case be relevant to Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani in 1949 when he issued the Letter of the Holy Office ? He did not know of any such case.
Similarly how could it be relevant in 1960-65 at Vatican Council II when there are no such cases, known to us, in practical life ?_________________
The confusion comes from the fact that Aquinas speaks of "invincible ignorance" and calls it a punishment and that no one in invincible ignorance will be saved. But when we read ignorance will be saved. But when we read Aquinas' body of work, we see that he is not using the term as it is used by the Church elsewhere. By saying that the man in the forest will be provided inspiration or a teaching, Aquinas is clearly defining what the Church describes as vincible ignorance, ignorance that could have been overcome if the man had been willing. So all of Aquinas' teaching on invincible ignorance doesn't really apply to the Church's teaching.
Lionel:
Being saved in invincible ignorance would be a hypothetical case for us. So in itself it is irrelevant to the Feeneyite version of the dogma.
______________________
 
But even if we were to accept that Aquinas contradicts the Church’s teaching as expressed today, that does not mean that the Church has abandoned her traditional teaching. Aquinas does not define dogma on his own, nor is he infallible. He was wrong about the Immaculate Conception after all and he does not trump either the papal or conciliar magisterium.
Lionel:
Aquinas held the rigorist interpretation of the dogma. The quotations are there are on the Internet.
Liberal theologians have assumed that being saved in invincible ignorance (whatever be the concept) is explicit and knowable in the present times. Then starts their descent to heresy with this irrationality.
______________________
“None of them are interpreted by me, with the irrational proposition that persons saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma. This would be implying that we can personally see or know these persons on March 31, 2015 for them to be exceptions.”
I do not understand what you are saying here.
Lionel:
We cannot have a theology based on an irrationality.We cannot create a theology while assuming people now in Heaven are physically visible to us on April 1,2015. If we use a strange premise we will end up with a non traditional result. It would not be Catholic theology. It would be something new.
___________________________


  Invincible ignorance and baptism of desires are not “exceptions” to the dogma,
Lionel:
Are you affirming the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma here? The Feeneyite version with no exceptions?
______________________


rather they are fulfillments of the dogma.
Lionel:
They don't exist in our reality.They have nothing to do with the de fide teaching on all non Catholics needing to formally enter the Church in the present times.I cannot meet someone in Rome today who I know will be saved without 'faith and baptism' in the present or future.
________________________
 
If your objection is that you think the Church is creating exceptions to the dogma, then you do not understand the Church’s contemporary teaching.
Lionel:
The Church contemporary teaching is based on a factual error. I am sorry I have to point this out. I wish some priest, bishop or cardinal would have done this.
Their theology is based on an objective error. Even a non Catholic could detect it.Since it violates common sense, common knowledge.
____________________
 
The core of this aspect of the teaching is that there are those who are not formally members of the Church who can nonetheless be joined to the Church.
Lionel:
Assuming there were such cases ( even though it is de fide that all need to be formal members of the Church for salvation) we cannot meet an such case today morning or today afternoon. We cannot shake his hands. Personally we do not know who he or she is. So if you are inferring that this case is an exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma, you do not have a known case.You cannot cite his or her name and surname.
______________________
 
The salvation of baptism of desire, even in invincible ignorance, is not a salvation outside the Church, it is a salvation *inside* the Church, even if that person is not visibly in the Church to use Aquinas’
terminology.
Lionel:
Whether it is inside or outside the Church, finally, we know that practically there is no such case.
________________________
But we cannot know exactly who those people are.
Lionel:
Exactly. Only God can judge and know who they are.
"Zero cases of something cannot be exceptions to the dogma", says John Martignoni, the apologist who appears on EWTN. This is a zero case for us human beings.

_____________________
 
Only God can judge whether a person's ignorance is really invincible and whether their desire was effectively a desire for Baptism. We, therefore, can only pray and hope and seek to minimize the number of people in ignorance, invincible or otherwise. The Church offers a sure path to salvation, a gift, outside of which is a treacherous path, and so our evangelical call remains just as clear as ever.
Lionel:
Yes.Agreed.
_____________________
 
“I see it as an oversight of the magisterium after 1949. It can be corrected and we are back to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma.”
An oversight? It is the explicit teaching of an ecumenical council.
Lionel:
Vatican Council II refers to invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. It leaves it up to us to infer, if these cases, are exceptions to all needing faith and baptism(AG 7) for salvation.So I infer they are not.
I am in agreement with Vatican Council II.My view is that of the magisterium according to the texts of Vatican Council II and other documents. (CCC 1257 etc).__________________
 
The embrace of baptism of desire (which you *seem* to reject, I admit that your presentation leaves things a bit murky) is explicitly taught in Vatican II.
Lionel:
Vatican Council II does not state that these cases are explicit for us. These cases can only be implicit for us human beings and explicit only for God.So when it is assumed that these cases are explicit something new has been added, something foreign.If Vatican Council II suggest this then it has made an error. If a pope suggests this then he has made an objective error even if he is the pope.
_________________________
 
Baptism of Desire’s role as a part of the Church’s teaching that none can be saved outside the Church – because Baptism of Desire is not an exception to the teaching, it is a way to fulfill the teaching – cannot
be “corrected” unless the whole Council be declared invalid.

Lionel:
No correction has to be made in the text.I am affirming the present text when I hold the rigorist interpretation of the dogma according to Ad Gentes 7 ( 'all' need 'faith and baptism') and that there are no explicit exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to AG 7.So I can affirm the Feeneyite version of the dogma along with implicit- for- us baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, seeds of the Word (AG 11), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 2), a ray of that Truth which enlighetens all men (NA 2), elements of sanctification and truth(LG 8) etc.
-Lionel Andrades