Friday, April 3, 2015

Rome Vicariate, Ecclesia Dei, SSPX, FSSP, CMRI agree Marchetti made a mistake and Feeney was correct

Cardinal Agostino Vallini and Rome's Auxiliary bishops agree with me : 1
1.The Catholic Church affirms the traditional rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since they do not know of any exceptions.
2.So for Rome in 2015 , there are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the strict, Feeneyite version of the dogma.
3.Those who are saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not personally known to them.They are not exceptions. They never were. They agree with me!!
I have been e-mailing these blog posts to them. There is no denial from the Rome Vicariate, the Vatican Press Office, Ecclesia Dei. No denials also from the SSPX at Econe,the FSSP or the sedevacantists CMRI.
They are not denying that Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake. There is no known salvation outside the Church.He did not know of any person saved without being a formal member of the Church. He could not know such a case.
So Fr.Leonard Feeney was magisterial and still is.
There are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the rigorist, Feeneyite traditional version of outside the Church there is no salvation.
This was the position suported by the SSPX in the General Chapter Statement of 2012. This was the doctrinal position rejected by Cardinal Muller since he and the Vatican Curia assumed there are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
 
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani.
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
Lionel:
Who 'knows or does not know' can only be known to God. Cardinal Marchetti assumed that those who are saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are 'known to us'. So he infers that those who are in ignorance are 'known exceptions'  to the dogma . He makes the distinction between knowing and not knowing , as being necessary for salvation, when the dogma refers to ALL with no exceptions.
______________________________________

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).- Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Lionel:
Those who are saved as such, 'only in desire and longing', the Rome Vicariate, Ecclesia Dei, SSPX, FSSP, CMRI agree, are not physically visible to us, they are not personally known to us, they cannot be personally known to us in the present times.
____________________________

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Lionel:
The Rome Vicariate, Ecclesia Dei, SSPX, FSSP, CMRI agree that those 'united to her by desire and longing' are not physically visible to us, they are not personally known to us. So these cases cannot be relevant to the dogma. It cannot  be an exception as Marchetti infers. So here he has made a mistake when he states it is not always required that 'he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member'.This is heresy. There is no historical precedent in the Church for this statement. Neither could he know of any particular case which was an exception.While the dogma tells us that God chose to limit salvation to the Sacraments.
____________________________

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
When he refers to a person 'involved in invincible ignorance' the Vicariate is telling us that there is no such known case in our present times.

'God accepts also an implicit desire', yes, as a possibility, a hypothetical case for us.It would be known only to God.
____________________________

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.).-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
No where does Mystici Corporis state that there are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma. It does not state that those saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are physically visible and personally known in the present times to be exceptions to the dogma.
____________________________

 For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.- Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
We cannot know the difference since we do not know of any exceptions.
___________________________

With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire,...-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
He reproves the Rome Vicariate, Ecclesia Dei, SSPX, FSSP and CMRI for agreeing that there are no known exceptions to the dogma.Since those 'united to the Church only by implicit desire ' are not personally known to us, they cannot be personally known to us.He reproves what is common sense.
____________________________

From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical , fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without. - Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
They were saying the same thing as the Rome Vicariate, Ecclesia Dei, SSPX, FSSP and CMRI i.e we do not and cannot know of any exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
____________________________

From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts 20:28). -Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
He is saying that the pontiff, Pius XII, was contradicting the popes of the past.
___________________________

Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities,...-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
Here he slanders Fr.Leonard Feeney by name.
'Catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities' means teaching that there are known exceptions in the present times (1949) to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
____________________________

 and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
Fr.Leonard Feeney could not say that in 1949 there were known exceptions to the dogma.He would not say that there were non Catholics saved outside the Church, a claim also being made by Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Jesuit Provincial and also the Rector at Jesuit Boston College.They allegedly knew of living persons who were in Heaven or going there without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7)!
______________________________

Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "" which is prescribed by the sacred canons.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
An imprimatur would only be given to those who said there were physically visible exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation.
_________________________________

Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. - Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
Rome in 1949 was contradicting the Vicariate in Rome in 2015.The magisterium in 1949 was making an objective mistake. It was inferring that persons in Heaven, who were  unknown to them and not physically visible, were known exceptions on earth to the traditional teaching, on all needing Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.Rome in 1949 was also contradicting Rome before 1949.The rupture with Tradition had entered the Church.
___________________________________

 Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
The magisterium was in obvious error and was asking for submission.
So we have a new element added to the on going doctrinal talks. Since it is agreed that Vatican Council II is Feeneyite, it does not contradict the traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism, this needs to be acknowledged in doctrinal talks.The CDF/Ecclesia Dei can now also open discussion with the CMRI and other sedevancantists.
-Lionel Andrades

1

April 2, 2015
They all agree with me !

A Loud Cry! - Michael Voris

A Loud Cry! -Michael Voris

https://youtu.be/wkjMwsPbEmc

There was no precedent for rejecting the Feeneyite version of the dogma.Not a single magisterial text before 1949 says there are exceptions to the traditional 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 extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
There is NO PRECEDENT for rejecting the Feeneyite version of the dogma.Not a single magisterial text before 1949 says there are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma. Not a single one!
So Marchetti's theory was just a theory.It was a personal inference. He did not know of a single exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma and there was no historical precedent, no magisterial document which supported him.
He gave us a new theory and this has become the new theology accepted by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in the Catechism and other magisterial documents during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II.
You have not been able to deny John Martignoni saying "Zero cases of something are not exceptions to the dogma".Many priests in Rome agree with Martignoni.It is common sense. It is something which is common knowledge.
Now even the Rome Vicariate, Ecclesia Dei , the SSPX and the FSSP do not deny it : there are no physically visible cases in the present times of persons saved outside the Church , saved without faith and baptism. So there are no explicit exceptions to the dogma in March-April 2015.
Marchetti did not have the support of the previous magisterial document and he did not know any exception and yet he rebelled against the traditional teaching on the dogma. This was heresy. He was also refuting the magisterium of the past. He was contradicting St.Maximillian Kolbe and thousands of saints.
The Cushingite heresy was then incorporated into Vatican Council II. Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 refer to being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire - as if it matters.
_____________________

wineinthewater
You are all over the place and your statements lack intellectual consistency. So I am going to sum up.
The magisterial teaching of the Church is clear, unambiguous and continuous.
Lionel:
For me the magisterial teaching of the Church documents (and not the contemporary magisterium i.e the persons in power) support the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( AG 7,LG 14, CCC 1257,845,846, Redemptoris Missio 55, Dominus Iesus 20 etc)

________________

wineinthe water:
There is no salvation outside the Church.
Lionel:
Yes and all non Catholics with no exception need to formally enter the Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. This is also magisterial.You cannot affirm this.

___________________
 
However, visible membership in the Church and water baptism are not necessary to be "inside the Church."
Lionel:
The Magisterium says it is necessary ( Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14), CCC 1257, 845,846, Redemptoris Missio 55, Dominus Iesus 20, Council of Trent,Syllabus of Errors, Catechism of Pope Pius X, Cantate Dominio Council of Florence 1441 etc).

__________________

 Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood incorporate a person into the Church even though that person be no a visible member.
Lionel:
We do not know of any such case.
For me the baptism of desire and blood are possibilities which I accept and they would always be followed with the baptism of water. This is the de fide teaching according to the dogma and other magisterial documents.
There is no dogma which says the baptism of desire must happen without the baptism of water.So I'll take a pass.

_______________________
 
This is the teaching of Trent,
Lionel:
This could be your political position. Since when I asked you to cite the text from the Council of Trent which says the baptism of desire refers to known cases, for it to be an exception to the dogma, you could not. You could not cite any text in which the Council of Trent refutes Cantate Domninio, Council of Florence 1441 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Case closed!

______________________
 
this is the teaching of Pius XI, this is the teaching contained in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, this is the teaching of Vatican II. They are not exceptions to EENS. They are the fulfillment of it.
Lionel:
These are just words! Since you could not provide any proof in our discussion.No references.

______________________
 
This is the de fide dogma of the Church, not the false dogma you have described as such. While you can find Catholics, even Fathers of the Church, who have believed that visible membership in the Church and water baptism are necessary for salvation, that has *never* been a dogma of the Church. You will not be able to find it dogmatically defined *anywhere.*
Feeney's theology is heresy.

Lionel:
And so was St.Maximillian Kolbe and thousands of saints? Also the popes and the Church Councils ? All in heresy?
_______________________
 
He explicitly denied what the Church explicitly teaches.
Lionel:
 
Words! You could not substantiate this in the earlier conversation.

______________________

 He denied that Baptism of Desire could lead to salvation when Councils and Popes have taught that it can.
Lionel:
Speculation. You could not cite a single case of a pope or Church Council to support your view.

_________________
 
 Your theological speculation about God bringing a person back to earth to get water baptism before finding salvation has absolutely no grounding in Holy Tradition.
Lionel:
The saints remind us that we do not have all the answers.We cannot say for example, that St.Emerentiana went to Heaven without the baptism of water. We don't know.While the Church through the Holy Spirit does know. This is told to us through the dogmas of the Church.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been defined three times by Church Councils. It says all need Catholic faith and the baptism of water. It does not mention any exception.
___________________
 
Your hang up on "concrete cases today" is immaterial.
Lionel:
I am no theologian but of one thing, I am sure, I keep saying: 'We cannot see the dead on earth.'
So if there is no case there is no exception. If there is no known exception there is no exception.

______________________
 
We don't need to know who they are to know it is possible.
Lionel:
We cannot assume a possibility, a hypothethical case, is a defacto, objective exception to the dogma on April 3,2015. This is irrational thinking.

_______________________
 
And we do have concrete cases.
Lionel:
Not a single one.
_________________________
 
Jesus promised the Good Thief entrance to paradise, but he was never baptized with water.
Lionel:
Someone in the past cannot be an objective exception today. Your still clutching on to that straw.You know this is irrational thinking.

_______________________
 
St.Emerentiana was martyred before her baptism, yet is a canonized saint.
Lionel:
And you are inferring that someone who lived and died centuries back is an explicit exception today Good Friday, to all needing to convert into the Church, with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7). She is an example of salvation outside the Church, for April 3,2015.
For me every one on April 3 needs to be a formal member of the Church, as they say pejoratively, to be ' a card carrying member of the Church' -
and we would not and could not know of any modern day St.Emerentiana. Even if you say it was a possibility, it would not be known to us. This is elementary. This is elementary philosophy taught to Catholics seminarians.
______________________
 
Try as you might, no theological acrobatics can reconcile the theology of Feeney with Catholic dogma.
Lionel:
This is your liberal-left political postion.
I 'll still stay with the Magisterium ( according to magisterial documents), Tradition and Scripture.

______________________
 
In an irony, Feeney is a poster-child for the danger of the Protestant error.
Lionel:
Marchetti and Cushing were examples of the Protestant error, they came out with a new theory, a new theology, a new doctrine and here your trying to, as it's said,'shove it down my throat'.

______________________
 
He raised his own private opinion - in this case his private opinion about Tradition rather than a private opinion about scripture - above the teaching of the Church, the very heart of Protestantism, and disobedience such as Feeney's is almost always a natural consequence.
Lionel:
Opinions, political.
Magisterium, Scripture and Tradition, before and after Vatican Council II support Fr.Leonard Feeney and those four heroic Catholic professors of theology, who were expelled by pro-Left Boston College, for their traditional and rational Catholic beliefs. It seems, as if way back in 1949 too, the Boston Ecclesiastical hierarchy and the Jesuits ,were working for the future NWO and the one world religion.So they had an agenda given to them : 'get rid of the Catholic dogma on salvation'.
-Lionel Andrades