Sunday, June 7, 2015

...just like Michael Voris

The priest I was talking with yesterday reminded me of Michael Voris. Michael will say all need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.He said this often.But when he comes to theology he will say 1) not every one needs to be a card carrying member of the Church. He said this recently on a video.2) Or all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Catholic Church implying there are exceptions. There are persons saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.3) Or God is not limited to the Sacraments (CCC 1257). 
Michael Voris and this priest with whom I spoke to yesterday Saturday, first Saturday of the month, were using Marchetti's theology (1949).Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger instead of identifying  and correcting the error of Marchetti, consolidated  it in the Catechism in 846,1257( see points 1,2 and 3 above).
Dominus Iesus and Redemptoris Missio avoid directly affirming the Feeneyite version of the dogma.
So the official position in the Church is that the dogma is still accepted but with Marchetti's irrational thinking.
This is double speak. It is a falsehood.
Yet every priest in Rome has to mouth this new ecclesiology (understanding of Church) , to remain incardinated. The contemporary magisterium has compromised with the political Left.
 So one can no more proclaim the Good News, since every one does not need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church any more, according to Marchetti's visible-dead exceptions theory.
So when someone says outside the Church there is no salvation it is often meaningless since he is no longer speaking in the traditional sense. This is understood by the Vatican  and the Vicariate in Rome. This is the 'new revelation' in the Catholic Church.
All the priests, bishops and cardinals, who presently oppose the changes likely to be brought about in the October Synod, have to also accept this irrationality  to remain incardinated. This was a condition of the political Left , which even Cardinal Ratzinger accepted.
Summorum Pontificum  for the traditionalist, yes!- but with the new ecclesiology, the new revelation.It was always like this.
This is the new Church which Conciglia of the Holy Trinity, who met Pope Benedict XVI recently, could be referring to.
Recently even Fr.John Zuhlsdorf wrote on extra ecclesiam nulla salus in which he considered  being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire , as being exceptions to the dogma. This is now a break and butter issue. He has to protect his incardination and also his blog.So he accepts the new revelation, as does Michael Voris and the priest with whom I spoke to yesterday.
- Lionel Andrades

Accept the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance in isolation and not linked to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus


http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/accept-baptism-of-desire-and-being.html



Vatican/Vicariate is not allowing priests in Rome to interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism : incardìnation prohibition

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/vaticanvicariate-is-not-allowing.html



Accept the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance in isolation and not linked to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

We can accept  being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire in isolation - and not in connection,with  the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They are not linked.
Yesterday I was talking to a friend and he would go into the theology of the baptism of desire (BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I)  with respect to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 This was meaningless for me since these cases do not exist in our reality. To be exceptions to the dogma ( as the theology implies) they would have to be known.So this priest would agree that literally we cannot see these persons in Heaven, so they were not physical exceptions, to all needing to be formal members of the Church-but  then again after some time, he would express the theology he was taught.He would try to explain how BOD and I.I are part of the dogma. This was meaningless for me since I.I  and BOD were 'zero cases', to use John Martignoni's  phrase.
So upon 'zero cases' he had created a theology to connect I.I and BOD with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
I had to interrupt him a few times  and then I stopped and let him continue with the cycle.
I could see he would be in knots, in his mind, since over a non existent case he had created a theology.
For me these were zero cases of I.I and BOD today. Today is the key word. Since the dogma is referring to cases today. We can be baptized today. It is concrete.
If there was no known case of BOD and I.I  today, there was no exception to the dogma.
Why speak  about martyrs ( baptism of blood) of the past, or those in another country of may be some hypothetical case  existing at that time in some part of Rome, They are not part of my reality and not his,today. I don't know them personally. I cannot say they will be saved or are saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.I don't even know who they are.
FSSP and SSPX priests often mention St.Emerentiana. What has this saint to do with the Feeneyite  version of the dogma?
I can accept St.Emerentian's in isolation( separate from the dogma)  as something real and true, without connecting her to the Feeneyite version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
If I do make the connection then I imply that she exists today and that  I personally know her and so she is an exception to the dogma.She is in Heaven without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church and I can see her in the present times! This would be the wrong inference.This would be the inference, otherwise why mention her name with respect to the dogma.If she does not exist today then how can she be defacto exception to all needing to convert into the Church formally today for salvation?
We cannot and do not personally know of any such case today.
This was where Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani went off the tracks and gave us a new theology. It was based on a factual error. It implies we can see  people of the past, we can see them today! So St.Emerentiana is an exception to the Feeneyite version of the dogma today for the FSSPX, SSPX.
All do not need to be card carrying members of the Church for salvation in the present times is their conclusion.Why? Because they know of an exception today!
This was the theology I was being presented with yesterday, again and again.by a good, orthodox Catholic priest.
-Lionel Andrades



Vatican/Vicariate is not allowing priests in Rome to interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism : incardìnation prohibition

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/vaticanvicariate-is-not-allowing.html

MICM : Vatican Council II supports Fr.Leonard Feeney on the dogma

/  
I know MICM fairly well, but I do not quite understand the main point of this article.-Twitter
Lionel:
I was trying to make the following 15 points in the blog post : Cardinal Robert Sarah and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/cardinal-robert-sarah-and-slaves-of.html


1.The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (MICM), the St.Benedict Centers, in Worcester and Manchester USA  could inform  Cardinal Robert Sarah, that 
the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, since these are invisible cases. A and A+are not exceptions to B
2.So they can accept a Vatican Council II which does not contradict the strict intepretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Feeneyite version.
3. They would have to reject the Vatican Curia's intepretation of Vatican Council II, in which A is an exception to  as being an irrational intepretation
4.The MICM presently also interprets interprets A as being in conflict with B.In other words A is visible to be an exception. 
5.The MICM are affirming Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 and Fr.Leonard Feeney's interpretation when they clarify that A refers to invisible cases, physically not seen or known in the present times.
6. So they attend/offer the Traditional Latin Mass knowing that the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church has not changed over the years, for them.They now have a new choice . They can affirm  A+ and B and so ecclesiology is still traditional. Pre- Vatican Council II and post Vatican Council II ecclesiology will be traditional, in harmony.
7.Theologically and doctrinally the MICM  would be traditional and they do not reject Vatican Council II.Since Vatican Council II would not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
While Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14, on all needing faith and baptism for salvation, supports an ecumenism of return.All need Catholic Faith (AG 7).All  non Christians need to  convert with 'faith and baptism' for salvation.
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949
8.The MICM would accept the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 as supporting the dogma and re-interpret the second part as not contradicting the first part, since there are no known cases of A in the present times.Cardinal Marchetti assumed  A contradicted B.The MICM would not be rejecting the Letter (1949)-
9.With the new option, the MICM could interpret CCC 845,846,1257 as supporting the dogma  according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
10.They would interpret the liberal theology in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as referring to hypothetical cases. So they would not be exceptions to the orthodox passages  CCC 845,846,1257 in the Catechism, A would not contradict B.
11.Similarly magisterial documents like Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus would be accepted as  not contradicting  the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. 
12.Though these documents do not directly affirm the rigorist interpretation of the dogma, there is no text in these Church documents to contradict the rigorist interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
13.They would be aware of magisterial documents including Vatican Council II being interpreted with an irrational premise and inference by many people. This they would avoid. 
14.Cardinal Robert Sarah's could help by saying A does not conflict with B since it refers to invisible cases for us human beings.
15.Whatever be any one's views on Fr.Leonard  Feeney does not contradict B and so there are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II, to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which Pope Pius XII called ' an infallible teaching'(Letter of the Holy Office 1949).
-Lionel Andrades



1.
(A) those who  who are saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16, a ray of the Truth (NA 2),imperfect communion with the Church (NA) elements of sanctification and truth(LG 8), seeds of the Word (AG 11)  and good and holy things in other religions (NA ) are :
1) Visible and known to us in the present times.
2) They are saved without the baptism of water ( as if he would know of such a case)  
(B) the rigorist intepretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , the Feeneyite version.

2.
A + i,e being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire  followed by the baptism of water, in a manner known only to God.This is the position of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiamnulla salus.
So A+ is also compatible with B.