Friday, April 10, 2015

Mic'd Up: Catholic School Daze

Luke Macik, Headmaster of the Lyceum Academy mentions theology as a science.But the students at the Lyceum are not being taught Catholic theology as it was done over the centuries since they have to choose between Feeneyism or Cushingism and they choose the latter.
The Church of Nice is using Cushingism as theology. This was the change which came into the Church in 1949 and then was incorporated in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) and then the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( 1257,846). So you no more have the same science of theology at the Lyceum or at David Obeid's St. Mary Mackillop Colleges in Australia.They are using Cushingism since they assume that Feeenyism has been condemned by the Church,a view which is false.
The contemporary Magisterium all over the world promotes politically correct Cushingism as theology.This is the reality.
Though we still can interpret magisterial documents with Feeneyism when we are aware of the irrational premise and inference which is the basis of Cushingism.This has to be identified. Then implemented.It has to be talked about.
Luke Macik thinks theology is still constant in the Catholic Church and this is not true. I had been in communication with David Obeid and I know he is making the same error.
The issue is how can you teach the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in a secular society which will oppose it ?
The opposition will come from within and without the Church.The local bishop will not approve it.
-Lionel Andrades

Mic'd Up: Catholic School Daze


April 12,2015: Divine Mercy Sunday
After Vespers today, there was a procession to the cemetery. I could not go, because I was on duty at the gate. But that did not stop me at all from praying for ther souls. As the procession was returning from the cemetery to the chapel, my soul felt the presence of many souls.
I understood the great justice of God, how each one had to payoff the debt to the last cent. (Diary 1375)
One day, I saw two roads. One was broad, covered with sand and flowers, full of joy, music and all sorts of pleasures. People walked along it, dancing and enjoying themselves. They reached the end without realizing it. And at the end of the road there was a horrible precipice; that is, the abyss of hell. The souls fell blindly into it; as they walked, so they fell. And their number was so great that it was impossible to count them. And I saw the other road, or rather, a path, for it was narrow and strewn with thorns and rocks; and the people who walked along it had tears in their eyes, and all kinds of suffering befell them. Some fell down upon the rocks, but stood up immediately and went on. At the end of the road there was a magnificent garden filled with all sorts of happiness, and all these souls entered there. At the very first instant they forgot all their sufferings. (Diary 153)

Bishop Paul B.Bootkoski will not endorse Church teaching on sodomy and also Vatican Council II ?

Christine Niles has contacted the Diocese of Metuchen,USA.Church Militant TV Headlines  announced that Bishop Paul B.Bootkoski, the bishop of Metuchen will not endorse the Church Teaching on Sodomy.
I think if Bishop Bootkowski was asked by Church Militant TV to affirm Vatican Council II's teachings on Muslims and Jews he would also not do it.He would not be able to say that Vatican Council II says they all need faith and baptism for salvation.
He would consider it 'disturbing' and 'not reflecting the Church's teachings of acceptance'. These were the reasons why he encouraged Patricia Januzzi to be placed on administrative leave, in a school in his diocese when she commented on homosexuality and the family.
According to Vatican Council II Muslims and Jews are on the way to Hell since they do not have Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.Millions of them will go to Hell and Bishop Bootskowski will not mention it since he really does not want to lose his office.So just as he does not want to affirm the Church's teaching on sodomy, and possibly lose his office as bishop, he will not say that Vatican Council II affirms the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Bishop Bootkowski is appeasing the pro-Satan lobby, expressed by the political Left. They approve of homosexuality, abortion, atheism, attacks on Church doctrine...There are politicial threats to those who oppose them.
Similarly even popes and cardinals have not wanted to affirm other Church teachings, or they let it be changed through their silence.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger supported the pro-Satan lobby,perhaps unknowingly, when he inserted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257) that 'God is not limited to the Sacraments'.He was  suggesting that there are known exceptions to the Church's teachings on the Necessity of Baptism.
He repeated, instead of corrected, the line in Cardinal Marchetti's Letter(1949) which stated 'Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member'. Not always required? How did he come to this conclusion ? Neither did cardinals Marchetti or Ratzinger personally know of someone in the present times ( Marchetti 1949- Ratzinger 1992) saved without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. They did not and could not know any one who was saved without 'being incorporated into the Church actually as a member'. No magisterial document before 1949 also mentioned any exceptions.So there was no precedent. It was not there in Mystici Corporis or the Council of Trent. No document said that it was possible to personally know of persons saved without faith and baptism or that these cases were exceptions to the dogma.The cardinals had to wrongly infer that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance referred to personally known cases, for them to be exceptions to the dogma.The text no where says this before 1949.They used this error to change Church exclusivist ecclesiology.
So Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger too stayed in office and avoided tension, like Bishop Paul Bootskowski.He changed Church doctrine with the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257).
Cardinal Ratzinger was following Pope Paul VI in Ecclesiam Suam and Evangelii Nuntiandi.This  pope never clearly and directly said that all needed to enter the Church, with no exceptions.Even Pope John XXIII did not correct the Marchetti error.
No one said that it was Cardinal Cushing who was in heresy.
No one said that it was Cardinal Marchetti who was in heresy.
Now Bishop Bootskowski uses Cushingism to interpret Magisterlal documents including Vatican Council II and this is being taught at schools in Methuen.
Probably Patricia Januzzi as a teacher of theology and religion also taught this error.
School children in Catholic religion classes are exposed to  doctrinal indifferentism.They are not taught that outside the Church there is no salvation.Since the indifferentism is there in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, when it says God is not limited to the Sacraments.
-Lionel Andrades
Controversial Bishop Won't Endorse Church Teaching on Sodomy
Bishop Bootkoski obfuscates - kicks Patricia Januzzi under a second bus!

April 12,2015: Divine Mercy Sunday
One evening; one of the deceased sisters who had already visited me a few times, appeared to me. The first time I had seen her, she had been in great suffering, and then gradually these sufferings had diminished; this time she was radiant with happiness, and she told me she was already in Heaven… And further as a sign that she only now was in Heaven, God would bless our house. Then she came closer to me, embraced me sincerely and said, "I must. Go now".
I understood how closely the three stages of a soul's life are bound together; that is to say, life on earth, in purgatory and in heaven [the Communion of Saints]. (Diary 594)

There is an option Fr.John Zuhlsdorf

Conservatives have no where else to go (e.g., the SSPX simply not an option). Conservatives accept Vatican II AND the Catechism of the Catholic Church AND Code of Canon Law says Fr.John Zuhlsdorf on his blog.1
There is another option  Fr.Z!
There are Catholic conservatives, unlike Fr.Z, who reject parts of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, since these passages contradict Tradition and these very documents themself.They are re-interpreted according to Tradition.
So they would accept Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church with the SSPX position on other religions and ecumenism.These Catholics would reject these magisterial documents according to Cardinal Walter Kaspar or Cardinal Gerhard Mullers understanding of other religions and ecumenism related to salvation.
They would interpret these two Church documents in agreement with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra eccelsiam nulla salus, according to Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Church Councils, popes and saints.
They would reject these documents according to Cardinals Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani and Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Jesuits and Pope Benedict and Pope Francis.
So there is an option !
We go to Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church and to Catholic Tradition -uncompromised by the Marchetti -Cushing objective error.
We affirm the Magisterium according to the texts of these documents interpreted without the irrational, premise and conclusion.We reject the interpretation of the contemporary Magisterium, the magisterium of persons,who use an irrational premise, which is the basis for their irrational and non traditional theology.
-Lionel Andrades

April 12,2015: Divine Mercy Sunday
Once I was summoned to the judgement seat of God. I stood alone before the Lord. Jesus appeared such as we know him during his passion. After a moment, His wounds disappeared except . for five, those in his hands, His feet and His side.
Suddenly, I saw the complete condition of my soul as God sees it. I could clearly see all that is displeasing to God. I did not know that even the smallest transgressions will have to be accounted for. What a moment! Who can describe it? To stand before the Thrice-Holy God!
Jesus asked me, Who are you? I answered, "I am your servant Lord." You are guilty of one day of fire in purgatory. I wanted to throw myself immediately into flames of purgatory, but Jesus stopped me and said, Which do you prefer, suffer now for one day in purgatory or for a short while on earth? I replied, "Jesus, I want to suffer in purgatory, and I want to suffer the greatest pains on earth, even if it were to the end of the world." Jesus said, One [of the two] is enough; you will go back to earth, and there you will suffer much, but not for long; you will accomplish My will . and My desires, and a faithful servant of Mine will help you to do this Now, rest your head on My bosom, on. My heart, and draw from it strength and power for these sufferings, because you will find neither relief nor help nor comfort anywhere else. Know that you will have much, much to suffer, but don't let this frighten you; I am with you. (Diary.36)

Muslim professors must know exactly what are the teachings of the Catholic Church about Islam and other religions, before and after Vatican Council II

Photo of Dr Mustafa BaigDr Mustafa Baig, Research Fellow, Institute of Arabic and Islamic Studies, University of Exeter 1 participated in an event on Feb10,2015 at the University of Bristol according to the university website. 2 He was not exposed to the real teachings of the Catholic Church.Since Prof. Gavin D'Costa holds the irrational version.It is important that Muslim professors know exactly what are the teachings of the Catholic Church about Islam and other religions, before and after Vatican Council II.
It must be clear to them, that for Gavin D'Costa and the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales the following irrationality is accepted and is the basis for their interpreting Church documents.
1. The physically dead for us, who are now saved in Heaven in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire are considered exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They are not known or visible to us on April 10,2015.Yet salvation in Heaven is  objectively seen on earth for D'costa and others, to postulate these cases as living exceptions to the dogma. Vatican Council II (LG 16,LG 8,UR 3, NA 2 etc ) cannot refer to exceptions since these cases would only be known to God.Yet they are exceptions for D'Costa and other Catholics. While a Muslim scholar would agree that there cannot be exceptions to the dogma for us humans, the university faculty does not accept this simple empirical observation.
2. Similarly someone who allegedly died centuries back without the baptism of water  would not be an explicit exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church today, April 10,2015.A hypothtical case cannot be a defacto exception today.A theoretical case of the past cannot be objectively seen today.So D'Costa cannot refer a case of the past as being a defacto case and an exception in the present times.Yet he does. This would be philosophical reasoning gone wrong.Yet this is being done at the University of Bristol's Department of Religion and Theology.
3.Similarly the University of Bristol faculty would not personally know of someone today April 10, 2015 who would be saved in future, without faith and baptism and so would not need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church, to avoid Hell as the dogma teaches.They cannot posit someone living today as being an exception to Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism) and Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, which says extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Yet this irrationality is maintained by the Faculty in this department.
As a Catholic lay man I reject the irrationality in these three points above promoted  by the University of Bristol, even after they have been informed. I do not interpret Catholic Church ( magisterial) documents using this irrationality, which I refer to as Cushingism.
So here are some the Church documents I affirm while avoiding Cushingism.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. -Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.
the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them... The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit."- Catechism of the Catholic Church.

20. Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”. This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.-Dominus Iesus, Pope John Paul II.
Dialogue should be conducted and implemented with the conviction that the Church is the ordinary means of salvation and that she alone possesses the fullness of the means of salvation-Redemptoris Missio 55.
  • “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” -Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.

  • “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”-(Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302
  • “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.” -Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441
    Dialogue should be conducted and implemented with the conviction that the Church is the ordinary means of salvation and that she alone possesses the fullness of the means of salvation - Redemptoris Missio 55.

    In the interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257),Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14), Dominus Iesus and Redemptoris Missio I avoid the influence of Cushingism, which for me is irrational and heretical.
    Gavin D'Costa and even conservative Catholics would interpret these documents using the irrational premise, inference and conclusion.3.
    So according to these Church documents which I have quoted, all Muslims in England need to convert into the Catholic Church formally, with faith and baptism (AG 7) to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. There are no known exceptions and there cannot be any known exception for us Catholics.
    For me this is the teaching of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades


    10 February 2015: Debate: ‘Muslim-Catholic Relations since Paul VI: The Legacy of Ecclesiam Suam and Vatican II.’
    Mustafa Baig, Research Fellow, Institute of Arabic and Islamic Studies, University of Exeter;
    Gavin D’Costa, Professor of Catholic Theology, University of Bristol.
    Chair: David Leech
    University of Bristol and Gavin D'Costa repeat the lie on Catholic teaching : interprets Vatican Council II with Cushingism
    In what I believe

    what premise ?
    The irrational premise is "The dead are visible to us on earth".
    what inference/ conclusion ?
    The inference is since the dead are visible to us on earth, those who are saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance being explicit ( visible in the flesh) become exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
    So it is concluded that Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) contradict the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So it is concluded that Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition, it has the hermeneutic of rupture.
    what theology,
    The post -1949 theology says every one needs to enter the Catholic Church except for those in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire.Since it assumes that defacto( in fact in the present times,explicitly) there are known exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.So it is a theology which assumes there is salvation outside the Church even though we cannot know of any one saved without 'faith and baptism'.

    what Tradition.
    Pre- 1949 Catholic Tradition, on salvation ( soteriology) says there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. The three dogmas on extra ecclesiam nulla salus ,defined by three Church Councils, do not mention any exception. The text also does not mention the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance.I am referring to Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 etc.
    Also Mystici Corporis and the Council of Trent mention implicit desire etc but do not state that these cases are known to us, to be exceptions to the dogma.Neither do they state that there are exceptions to the dogma.
    Yet with the false premise and inference is how the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc are interpreted.

    Do you accept the baptism of desire?
    Yes. I believe a Catechuman who has an implicit desire for the baptism of water and dies before he receives it can be saved. Since God will provide the means for him to receive the baptism of water. It has been the experience of saints, including St. Francis Xavier that some people returned from the dead only to be baptised by them with the baptism of water.

    Irrational premise, Irrational inference, Non traditional conclusion
    The secular media uses an irrational premise which is "We can see the dead who are now in Heaven, we can physically see them in Heaven and on earth".
    They then make an
    irrational inference
    which is " Since we can see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water and formal entry into the Church, there is known salvation outside the Church and these cases are an explicit exception to the traditional interpretation of EENS."
    conclusion is : Vatican Council II is a break with EENS.

    I accept the Magisterium
    '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).
    I accept the Magisterium ( 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).
    Magisterium, Scripture and Tradition, before and after Vatican Council II support Fr.Leonard Feeney and the four Catholic professors of theology, who were expelled by Boston College.

    Exclusivist ecclesiology?
    The new theology is based on being able to see the dead. Remove the premise, which is, "I can see the dead on earth".We then have the old ecclesiology, the exclusivist ecclesiology. The ecclesiology of Vatican Council II is exclusivist. Since it affirms the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Ad Gentes 7, which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.LG 16,LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 etc are not known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 or the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. We are left with the old ecclesiology.

    Who agrees with you?
    Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors
    Implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martigioni
    April 12,2015: Divine Mercy Sunday
    The next night, I saw my Guardian Angel, who ordered me to follow him.
    In a moment I was in a misty place full of fire in which there was a great crowd of suffering souls. They were praying fervently, but to no avail, for themselves; only we can come to their aid.
    The fIames, which were burning them did not touch me at all. My Guardian Angel did not leave Me for an instant.
    I asked these souls what their greatest suffering was. They answered me in one voice for that their greatest torment was longing for God.
    I saw our Lady visiting the Purgatory. The souls call her "The Star of the Sea". She brings them refreshment. I wanted to talk with them some more, but my Guardian Angel beckoned me to leave. We went out of that prison of suffering. [I heard an interior voice] which said, My mercy does not want this, but my justice demands it. Since that time, I am in closer communion with the suffering souls. (Diary 20)