Saturday, June 27, 2015

If you assume BOB and BOD are linked to EENS, then LG 16,LG 8, UR 3 etc will contradict EENS. Then V2 is heretical

The pertinent part of Lumen Gentium, the heretical document of Vatican II to which you refer states: "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved"
We don't know any such case in 2015. So do not infer it is related to the dogma. This is the approach of the liberals and heretics.
 Modernism loves the ambiguous.
This line comes from the error Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. He assumed there were people saved in invincible ignorance and these cases were known to us in real life and so they were exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma. This was accepted by the liberal theologians in Boston and Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits put this line in Vatican Council II.
However when we are aware that these cases are not known to us, this line does not refer to an explicit exception to the dogma in the present times.

 In what sense of the word is "knowing" used? Is it simple awareness of the claim which you must then investigate or be guilty? (This is the traditional notion, but when was the last time some V2 sect "priest" ever preached that claim?) "Knowing" can also mean "accepting it as true." This is the sense most V2 clerics give to it, so as to excuse virtually everyone from having to convert due to "invincible ignorance." 
There is no way we can know these cases on earth. They are known only to God.

Moreover, it's important to note that the idea that false sects can be a "means of salvation" was taught be John Paul The Great Apostate in "Catechesi Tradendi" of 10/16/79 using the near word for word verbiage of Vatican 2:
"It is extremely important to give a correct and fair presentation of the other Churches and ecclesial communities, that the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using as means of salvation." 
Yes hypothetically, as a possibility, yes.
De facto we cannot judge. We do not know any one who will be saved or is saved in the present times outside the Church i.e without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.

As Pope Pius IX taught in "Ubi primum": Let those who wish to be saved come to this pillar, to this foundation of the truth which is the Church, let them come to the true Church of Christ which, in her Bishops and in the Roman Pontiff, the supreme head of all, possesses the uninterrupted succession of apostolic authority...We will never spare either Our efforts or Our labors, to bring back,by the grace of the same Jesus Christ, to this unique way of truth and salvation, those in ignorance and error."

Non-Catholic religions are not a "means of salvation", since the Roman Catholic Church is the unique way of truth and salvation.
Yes. This was also mentioned in the CDF Notification on Fr.Jacques Dupuis S.J (2001)
 V2 is heretical at face value,
At face value, if you use Marchetti's false inference, if you assume BOD and BOB refer to known cases in June 2015, if you assume BOB and BOD are linked to EENS, then LG 16,LG 8, UR 3 etc will contradict EENS. Then V2 is heretical.
The error would be there on the part of the sedevacantist but not in V2 itself. For me V2 is Feeneyite. It is traditional.LG 16,UR 3 etc do not contradict EENS.
 and its heresy affirmed by the post-V2 "popes."
Yes like the traditioalists they do not affirm the Feeneyite version of the dogma, the traditional version.

 LG 14 is nothing more than confusing Modernist claptrap to deceive people that the Council didn't really teach error.
The Council has picked up LG 14 from error in Boston in 1949. Though it can be interpreted without error when Marchetti's inference is avoided. It can be accepted as a dejure statement. It is not defacto known.It can be accepted as a reference to something invisible instead of being visible.Otherwise it becomes heretical.It would also be irrational.
-Lionel Andrades

Fr.Anthony Cekada uses an irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II just like the liberals

For Fr.Cekada Lumen Gentium 16 is an exception to EENS when he does not know any LG 16 case in 2015 in the USA.Yet it is an exception to EENS for him

Pope Francis like the sedevantists uses Marchetti's irrational premise and inference. He accepts the Council with this error

The EWTN report Tragic Errors of Fr.Leonard Feeney by Fr.William Most is based on irrational Cushingism

They would be saved with Catholic Faith when they are saved. Since in Heaven there are only Catholics. This is not contested in the UR 3 text

Marchettiism is a major heresy in the Catholic Church in the present times

For you UR 3 and LG 8 are exceptions to the dogma.Why? Who do you know today who is saved as mentioned in UR 3,LG 8?
-Lionel Andrades

For Fr.Cekada Lumen Gentium 16 is an exception to EENS when he does not know any LG 16 case in 2015 in the USA.Yet it is an exception to EENS for him

I've never met someone who says "right" only to so invariably get it WRONG! You Feeneyites are SO predictable it would actually be funny if it wasn't so tragic; endangering your salvation and those of other who imbibe your disproven and heretical ideas.

Here is a list of your errors above:

Error #1. Nor have the popes ever expressly taught either BOD or BOB. Nor have they ever even used those terms in their teaching
 Lionel: They have never taught BOD and BOB as being explicit for us or as being exceptions to the dogma. There was no link. You have made the link as have the popes after Pius XII.Answer: Pope Benedict XV expressly teaches BOD and BOB in promulgating the Code of Canon Law (1917). The Church is infallible. The proposition that the Church could err in Her universal disciplinary Laws was condemned by Pope Pius VI (Auctorum Fidei), Pope Gregory XVI (Mirari Vos and Quo Graviora), Pope St. Pius X (Pascendi Domenici Gregis), and Pope Pius XII (Mystici Corporis).
 Lionel: I repeat they have not said that these cases are objective for us on earth or that they are explicit exceptions to EENS.
Major Premise: The Church is Infallible and cannot err in Her universal disciplinary laws.
Minor Premise: The 1917 Code of Canon Law is a universal disciplinary law.
Conclusion: The Church cannot teach error in the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

In Canon 737 and Canon 1239.2, the Church teaches BOD and BOB. Therefore, they cannot be wrong as they are guarded by the Infallibility possessed by Pope Benedict XV. If he taught error George, you would have to believe that there has been a state of sedevacante at least since 1914, since he would have lost his papal office! Do you believe that?

 Lionel: I repeat they have not said that these cases are objective for us on earth or that they are explicit exceptions to EENS.
Error #2: For if the defined dogma of the Church is that there’s no salvation outside the Church how can we accept the teaching that there is some salvation outside the Church? It’s completely illogical.
Lionel: Agreed! And if one of those propositions must be rejected, surely it should be the one that contradicts the infallible teachings of the popes, no matter who is promoting it.
 Lionel: Agreed!

Answer: There is no salvation outside the Church. Apparently, you have problems in reading comprehension. Read what I wrote above:
III) The Church Recognizes Two Extraordinary Means Of Attaining Church Membership and Salvation: Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB)
Lionel: Yes if they are followed with the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.But this may not be what you are referring to.

In the case where someone has (a) explicit Catholic Faith and Desire for the sacrament but no opportunity for Baptism, or (b) implicit Catholic Faith where explicit Faith is impossible, or (c) if someone sheds his Blood for Christ's One True Church yet has been prevented from getting baptized, God can perform a miracle of Grace whereby He infuses Faith and Sanctifying Grace into the soul immediately prior to death. The person dies Catholic and in God's friendship, thereby being saved apart from the sacrament of Baptism in extraordinary conditions. Lionel: Fine and we would not know who he is. So do not infer that this case is related to EENS. All need 'faith and baptism'(AG7 ) for salvation today and I personally do not know this case you are referring to and neither would you know him or her personally.So it is irrelevant to the dogma, the Feeneyite version.
Ergo, those who receive BOD or BOB are members of the Church just prior to the moment of death and die within the Church.
Lionel: O.K . And they are not exceptions to Fr.Leonard Feeney's interpretation of the dogma.They have nothing to do with the Church Fathers interpretation of the dogma.
Secondly, do you believe that Pope Benedict XV and all those pre-Vatican II theologians were so stupid they wouldn't (didn't) see any contradiction when the declare EENS and BOD/BOB? It's illogical only because you don't understand it. The contradiction is one concocted in your heretical mind, not objective reality.
Lionel: The lliberal theologians who proposed BOD and BOB as being exceptions to the dogma in the 1949's etc were heretical.

  • All your ramblings about contradictions and intelligibility are just that---mindless ramblings. 

    Error #4: Moreover, that the non-contradiction position is, on the other hand, completely unintelligible to the intellect becomes obvious when you ask someone who holds it how the apparent contradiction can be resolved, they immediately start talking about Saint Thomas, the consensus of theologians, the catechisms, etc., instead of defending their position according to logic or according to its inherent reasonableness, which, of course, it doesn’t possess.

    Answer: It is you who are devoid of logic and reasonableness, as I've just explained those who receive BOB and BOD are members of the Church!
  • Lionel: Of course you are not referring to the line of reasoning used by one Lionel Andrades. You are referring to George.I am waiting for you to discuss my approach. I though would agree with George if he says BOD and BOB are not exceptions to the dogma, even though his approach may be different.

    Error# 5:But to hold inexorably to the infallible teachings of the holy popes and to utterly reject any opinion that contradicts them, no matter from what source, is not to hold to one’s private judgment, but rather to reject private judgment altogether, whether their own or anyone else’s, and to hold firmly to the pillar and ground of all truth.
    Lionel: There is a problem.The popes after 1949 contradict the popes before 1949.
    Answer: Pope Benedict's promulgation of the Code of Canon Law (1917) was infallible and teaches BOD and BOB.
    Lionel: We do not have to reject BOD and BOB. Since being implicit and invisible for us they are compatible with the rigorous interpretation of EENS.Therefore, you are rejecting the Church's Indefectibility; She cannot promulgate erroneous disciplinary laws to the whole Church as explained above. It is "universal" as it applies to all Latin right Catholics. It is even "Universal" in the non-technical sense, as the Eastern Rites all possess canons of discipline that state the doctrines of BOD and BOB as in the Latin Rite. 
    Lionel: I accept BOD and BOB but for me these cases are explicit and known only to God. They are possibilities for me. They are not defacto, known cases in June 2015.For you it may not be the same.It is different for Fr.Cekada.

    In refusing to submit to all but infallible statements of the popes you are condemned by the pope!

    Pope Pius IX--Syllabus of Errors
    "The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church."

    As Fr Cekada once said to a Feeneyite: By denying BOD and BOB, you have, ironically, placed yourself "Extra Ecclesiam" where we all know there is "Nulla Salus." Please repent and come back to the Church.
    Lionel: Fr.Anthony Cekada is a sedevacantist like you.For him BOD was an exception to EENS. So he wrote that the MICM ( Fr.Leonard Feeney's communities in the USA) were in mortal sin, for not accepting BOD as an exception to EENS. For him Lumen Gentium 16 is an exception to EENS.He does not know any LG 16 case in 2015 in the USA.Yet it is an exception to EENS for him.So he rejects Vatican Council II and has gone into sedevacantism.-Lionel Andrades

    We cannot say that any particular person on earth today will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church but instead with baptism of desire.

    Obviously, you don't know the ancient law:
    "If they [Catechumens] died without Baptism BY THEIR OWN NEGLECT, OR BY THEIR OWN FAULT, they were disqualified for Christian burial. Where, however, there was no contempt, but only some necessity prevented the Baptism of Catechumens, the ancients treated them a little more favorably; not considering the mere want of Baptism under these circumstances to be of such consequence as to exclude men from Church-communion." (See Encyclopedia Metropolitana, {1820} pg. 387--Emphasis mine)
    Yes and these cases would only be known to God.We cannot say that any particular person on earth today will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church but instead with baptism of desire.
    So what has the baptism of desire to do with the dogma?

    So it was the practice to exclude those who by their own contempt and neglect failed to be baptized. The law hasn't changed, it's identical to ancient practice!! Once again, the Church is infallible when promulgating universal discipline as did Pope Benedict XV. What got worse were those who, not understanding the Catholic Truth distort it to where everyone receives "BOD" and goes to Heaven. 
    O.K they go to Heaven.
    However you are referring to a hypothetical case for you ?

    Pope Pius XI was explaining the ordinary means. Did he not adhere and accept the Code of Canon Law which admits of BOD and BOB? You're setting up a false dichotomy. Wouldn't he have contradicted Pope Pius IX in "Quanto Conficiamur Moerore"? 
    Ordinary or extra ordinary means, how would you know ? You don't know a single case over the last few years or more.

    Paragraph # 7:
    "Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. 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. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. "
    O.K there could be some case of a person in invincible ignorance, who has perfect charity and a good conscience.
    So how is this linked to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus if there are no such known cases today.
    O.K it is a possibility but you are not inferring that it is an exception or related to EENS?

    Attain eternal light by divine light and grace. No mention of the external rite of Baptism. So which pope is the heretic? Neither, since Pope Pius IX was speaking of extraordinary means and Pope Pius XI of ordinary means.

    Example: If someone says, "You must eat in order to live. You will starve to death otherwise." He speaks the truth. This is the normal way we live under the biological laws created by God.

    Someone else says, "You don't need to eat if God allows you to survive and thrive by a miracle." This is also true. It does not contradict the first statement of ordinary means. However, I will eat and not depend upon God for miraculous intervention as in the case of some saints who lived many years only consuming the Sacred Host at daily Communion. BOD is a miracle of grace in the supernatural order, but it is rare and we cannot depend on it to save other. Hence, the Great Commission.
    How would you know it is rare?
    -Lionel Andrades

    The Fathers do not say that BOD and BOB are physically known to us in the present times to be exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation.

    The same catholic Encyclopedia states:
    "The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood. "
    The Fathers do not say that BOD and BOB are physically known to us in the preseent times to be exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation.
    They do not say that we can meet these cases in real life and so they are examples of salvation outside the Church i.e people saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic.
    Liberal theologians and Cardinal Francesco Selvaggiani Marchetti MADE THE CONNECTION. They made the IRRATIONAL LINK. 
    They assumed that these cases were known in real life and so were exceptions to traditional EENS.
    You and I today are not obliged to make the same mistake as Marchetti and Cushing.

    Were the authors schizophrenic? Obviously, they are compatible, and the older sources confirm that only catechumens who were not baptized by virtue of their neglect or contempt.

    As to Pope Pius IX, you're correct insofar as divine light and grace come to humans through baptism, or in the words of the Council of Trent "the DESIRE THEREOF." 
    Again Trent only mentions 'the desire theorof'.The text does not say that these cases were explicit or were were exceptions to traditional EENS. 
    The liberal theologians inferred there were exceptions. They inferred that the baptism of desire was related to EENS.
    The sedevantists are following the same error. It is a factual error. We cannot see or know BOD or BOB cases this month. If they existed they would only be known to God.

    Moreover, check out the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X which expressly teaches BOD and BOB. Feeneyites have tried desperately to show he didn't write it--but he GAVE HIS FORMAL APPROVAL. That would make him, like Pope Benedict XV, a heretic. 
    Mentioning BOB and BOD is not a problem. The error arises when you assume these cases are not hypothetical but de facto known, they are not invisible for us but visible for us . Visible BOD cases in New York?

    None of this really matters. Because you, George, know more than St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, all the pre-Vatican II theologians, all the pre-Vatican II catechisms, and thereby reject the Ordinary Magisterium--and come under the condemnation of the Syllabus of Errors #22, seeking to obey only infallible pronouncements of the Pontiffs. Pity.
    I hope George like IAAD does not assume BOD and BOB refer to known cases in our reality for them to be exceptions to the dogma. I hope George just accepts BOB and BOD cases and does not lnki them to EENS.
    Otherwise the discussion would be over non existent persons and over these non existent persons a new theology would be created which would be welcomed by the Left.-Lionel Andrades

    Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary religious formation :no comment since last December

    Musings of a Pertinacious Papist

    DECEMBER 19, 2014

    Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary religious formation

    Brother Andre Marie MICM Prior of the St.Benedict Center Richmond, N.H has not denied that like the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Still River, MA , they accept novices who have to repeat the same irrationality as the liberal communities in the USA. This is approved by their respective bishops in Manchester and Worcester. This is part of the religious formation at the two St.Benedict Centers.
    Novices have to allege that there are exceptions in Vatican Council II to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
    They have to endorse  an error and claim  that Lumen Gentium 16 refers to persons saved in invincible ignorance or with a good conscience and these persons are visible and known to us.To assume that the dead in Heaven are visible and known to us in particular cases is a false premise an irrational propostion.How can the dead be living exceptions? And if the dead are not living exceptions to the dogma then how can it be said that Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) contradicts the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney? 
    Then the novices have to endorse the false conclusion. They have to claim that these dead -and- visible- for- us people, now in Heaven, are visible exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in 2014-2015 for salvation. So for the novices, Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. 1
    Brother Andre Marie removed a comment of mine in which I asked him if the religious formation at St.Benedict center N.H was the same as that of the community in Still Rivger,MA.
    I also mentioned that Brother Thomas Augustine MICM, the Prior at that centre has not commented on the blogpost 'Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Still River, MA accept novices who have to repeat the same irrationality as the liberal communities : approved by the bishop of Worcester'. He possibly agrees with me or does not understand what I am saying and does not want to discuss it.-Lionel Andrades

    JUNE 26, 2015