Thursday, September 17, 2015

Mobeen Shahid is teaching a lie with the approval of Cardinal Agostino Vallini and the pontifical university faculty : no denial from him

Mobeen Shahid is teaching a lie like the other professors at the Pontifical Lateran University, Rome to protect his career. He is encouraged in this by Cardinal Agostino Vallini, the Vicar General in Rome who hands out mandatums , canonical permissions to teach, to Catholic professors who teach a falsehood with the Magisterium's permission.So Mobeen's canonical status has not been revoked.
Mobeen will not affirm Vatican Council II which says 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation(AG 7, LG 14).Nor will he affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in agreement with Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14).He is unable to say that according to Vatican Council II and EENS all Muslims in 2015 need to convert into the Catholic Church formally; with faith and baptism, to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
Instead like other obedient professors including priests, he will teach that LG 16, LG 8, LG 14 etc refer to explicit cases, visible in daily life in Rome or elsewhere. These objective cases, for him have been saved with 'faith and baptism' so they are exceptions to the orthodox passages in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 , they contradict the dogma EENS. So these professors teach every one that all Muslims and other non Catholics do not need to formally enter the Church for salvation, since there are exceptions.
Some professors  extend the exceptions to most Muslims, others keep it vague.
It's irrational and a falsehood to say LG 16, LG 8, LG 14 etc refer to known cases in the present times.
I have e-mailed these blog posts to Mobeen.Also in the past I have asked him two questions and he would not answer.

How can Dr.Mobeen Shahid, an Assistant Professor of Philosophy ( Phenomenology/ EdithStein/Husserl) reason philosophically that LG 16 refers to explicit cases and so is an objective exception to the dogma EENS and the need for all to formally enter the Church with 'faith and baptism'?
This is the philosophical reasoning taught to students in the Philosophy Department of the John Lateran University Rome by Mobeen and Prof.Angela Ales Bello ?
They both will not answer two questions which I have asked them. They have the mandatum to teach as Catholics.
Mobeen is following general instructions. It is not anything original and different which he is doing as a Catholic professor in Rome.
-Lionel Andrades


Michael Voris does not say Cardinal Ratzinger was in heresy and schism at the time of the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre

Why does not Michael Voris say Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was in heresy and schism in the excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre?
Archbishop Lefebvre was correct Vatican Council II( with the inference) was a break with Tradition.It was an innovation. It contradicted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the Syllabus of Errors. It led to a new ecclesiology.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican. It was his responsibility to point out that Vatican Council II could be interpreted with or without the irrational inference. He said nothing.
It was the irrational inference which created the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition and he allowed it.May be he did not know about it. It was an innocent mistake. I too made it for most of my life.
Cardinal Ratzinger did not clarify the mistake for Archbishop Lefebvre, who was also unaware of it. So the blame cannot all be placed on the CDF.
Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated by Pope John Paul II for affirming the traditional teachings of the Church and not accepting an innovation.
Cardinal Ratzinger continued to use the irrational inference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. No SSPX bishop corrected him.The SSPX still uses the irrational inference but rejects Vatican Council II.Pope Francis uses the irrational inference but accepts Vatican Council II.
For Cardinal Ratzinger being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I), the baptism of desire(BOD) and baptism of blood(BOB), (with or without the baptism of water) referred to explicit cases in real life,seen in the flesh people.So he rejected the traditional interpretation of EENS, the Feeneyite version.Archbishop Lefebvre made the same mistake.
Michael Voris has accepted Vatican Council II with the irrational inference too, and has rejected the traditional Feeneyite version of the dogma EENS, when he says not every one needs to be a card carrying member of the Church for salvation, in the present times.
He has compromised, as compared to the past, and now he wants the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II with the irrational inference.So then Vatican Council II becomes a break with the old ecclesiology which they correctly affirm. LG 16, LG 8 and LG 14 will  refer to explicit cases, known in 2015.This would be non traditional and not the deposit of the Faith.
Archbishop Lefebvre's excommunication was wrong as was that of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Since the 1940's there have been 'bad excommunications'. The Magisterium was in heresy with the irrational inference.They had accepted the new doctrine, the innovation and were imposing it upon Archbishop Lefebvre,Fr.Leonard Feeney and the sedevacantist bishops and priests.
Michael Voris has accepted the heresy of the contemporary Magisterium and is no more traditional on the issue of salvation. He cannot say that there are no known cases of non Catholics saved with I.I, BOD and BOB in 2015.This is something objective.
He cannot say that these cases can only be accepted as being hypothetical but not explicit.BOD, BOB and I.I would all have to include the baptism of water since this is the teaching of Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257),the dogma EENS and the Nicene and Athanasius Creed.
If Michael Voris and the CMTV Staff does say this , the contemporary Magisterium could swoop down on them and threathen then with another 'bad excommunication'.
-Lionel Andrades

Michael Voris has compromised and wants the SSPX to do the same

Immagine correlata

Similar to Dominus Iesus and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Cardinal Ratzinger used an irrational inference in Ut Unum Sin
Franciscans of the Immaculate, SSPX note : Cardinal Ratzinger used an irrational inference in the interpretation of Dominus Iesus

In Dominus Iesus Cardinal Ratzinger chose the irrational inference and rejected the traditional dogma on salvation

Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake with the Letter of the Holy Office and carried it over into Vatican Council II


Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors
June 21, 2014
Catholic Religious indicate the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake :implicit desire etc is not visible to us

Catholic religious contradict Bishop Fellay : Nostra Aetate is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus


Implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martigioni