Friday, November 20, 2015

Father Z didn't notice the mistake in Lumen Gentium

First, the writer utilizes Lumen Gentium as an authoritative witness to the point he is trying to make.  However, Lumen gentium authoritatively affirms others things as well, such as the obligation we have to submit to properly defined and taught doctrine (not always a Jesuit strong point), and that those who resist membership in the Church, knowing her for what she is, cannot be saved.  Lumen gentium clearly upholds traditional doctrine about the Church’s hierarchical structure and insists on a qualitative difference between the priesthood of the ordained and of the laity.   There are more items, but that’s enough for now.- Fr.John Zuhlsdorf
Related image
For John Zuhlsdorf  on his blog 1 refers to the traditional teachings in Lumen Gentium which the Jesuits ignore. 
He considers ' those who resist membership in the Church, knowing her for what she is, cannot be saved.'  (Lumen Gentium 14) as being a traditional doctrine.

He does not realize that this line in Lumen Gentium  14 2 is there because of the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.
This line in Vatican Council II was a mistake.

It also contradicts the passge in Lumen Gentium 14 which says '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 and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.'1 


Here are the some of the historical steps to this error in Lumen Gentium 14.

1. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston 3 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII assumes the baptism of desire (BOD), baptism of blood (BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) refer to explicit cases, personally known to us.It also assumes that these cases exclude the baptism of water. It assumes the passages in red (see below) are explicit for us and so contradict the dogmatic teaching ( passages in blue). We know this is irrational and a mistake. The passages in red are really implicit, invisible for us and known only to God.So they cannot be exceptions or even relevant to the passages in blue.2

2. The excommunication was not lifted during Vatican Council II. Generations of Catholics grew up believing that the Church had changed its teachings on extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).They were told there was salvation outside the Church and  every one did not need to convert, they did not have to be ' a card carrying member of the Church' .

3. The Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing did not issue a denial when the Boston newspapers stated that the Church had changed its teaching on salvation.The Jewish Left newspapers  said that Fr. Leonard Feeney was not allowed to hold the rigorist interpretation of the dogma. At that time the state of Israel was new and influential.

4.The Archbishop of Boston prohibited Catholics from visiting the St. Benedict Center and Fr. Leonard Feeney's priestly faculties were taken away.The Holy Office in Rome supported the Archbishop in the doctrinal error i.e BOD,BOB and I.I were considered explicit and so became  exceptions to the traditional interpretation of EENS.
This was irrational. Since BOD, BOB and I.I cases who are  saved, would be in Heaven.They could not be exceptions on earth.Also no one could say that a particular person could be saved with BOD and without the baptism of water.

5.The Archbishop was supported by the Jesuits who expelled Fr. Leonard Feeney from their community.The Jesuit theologians began to cite the Baltimore Catechism (1808) in their defence.It assumed 1) implicit desire for the baptism of water in a hypothetical case was the same as seen- in - the -flesh baptism of water and  2) these theoretical cases were visible  'baptisms' so they were placed in the  Baptism Section of the catechism.

6. So now in the Church there are  three baptisms and not one baptism as is mentioned in the Nicene Creed.This was heresy and Rome did not correct it.There were also no known cases of BOD, BOB or I.I without the baptism of water.These 'baptisms' cannot be given like the baptism of water, which is visible and repeatable.They are invisible for us and so they were irrelevant to the teachings on baptism and should not have been placed in the baptism section.
The confusion was there in the Council of Trent which only mentions implicit desire(it does not refer to it as being explicit or a known baptism).The Baltimore Catechism developed it. It was included in the Catechism of Pope Pius X.

7.The Archbishop of Boston was made a cardinal and was active at Vatican Council II along with the Jesuits.They were ready to implement the new doctrine. They accepted BOD, BOB and I.I as exceptions to the traditional interpretation of EENS. The understanding was : not every one needed to enter the Church. There were exceptions. Being saved in invincible ignorance, for example, was an exception to the dogma EENS.This 'explicitly known person' would not be condemned. So Vatican Council II, says whosoever ' knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved'.This is a new teaching. The traditional teaching was every one needed to enter the Church not only those who knew. This was a break with St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Francis Xavier and the Jesuit missionaries.They were Feeneyites ( no known exceptions).

We cannot know who knows or does not know and will be saved accordingly.So why had they to mention it in Vatican Council ? 
They could mention it because of the error upheld by the Archbishop of Boston which was supported by Pope Pius XII and then even Cardinal Ottaviani.Rome supported Cushingism ( there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS) 

Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits wrongly made the link between being saved in invincible ignorance and the dogma EENS.There was no connection between the two.
Anyway at the practical level today Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) says all need 'faith and baptism for salvation and Fr. John Zuhlsdorf and Fr. Spadero  S.J do not know any one in 2015 who will be saved in invincible ignorance and without faith and baptism.There are no objective cases in 2015.

So the line '' knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved' was a mistake.It should not have been placed in Vatican Council II. It is confusing.It refers to a theoretical, hypothetical possibility known only to God. It would also have to be followed with the baptism of water since this is the dogmatic teaching on salvation and baptism.

If Pope Francis and the Vatican Curia want to accept this line, this error, fine, as along as they do not assume it refers to explicit cases in 2015.
Rationally, we know Vatican Council II does not contradict the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.LG 14 does not contradict itself , nor the dogma EENS.The Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake and the mistake was planted all over Vatican Council. Implicit cases were assumed to be explicit( LG 14, LG 8, NA 2, UR 3, AG 11 etc).

It seems as if Vatican Council II was called to implement the error in the 1949 Boston Case.
-Lionel Andrades



This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that 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. 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...
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II


Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.
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.
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 (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).
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.
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...
Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, <Singulari quadam>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, <Quanto conficiamur moerore>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1677)...
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, 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.
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.
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. 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.
In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,
Your Excellency's most devoted,
F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.
A. Ottaviani, Assessor.
(Private); Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.

I morti di Francia non si piangono cantando la “Marsigliese” di Mauro Faverzani

I morti di Francia non si piangono cantando la “Marsigliese”

place-de-la-republic(di Mauro Faverzani) I 129 morti e gli oltre 300 feriti di Parigi non han versato sangue per la “Marseillaise”. Non c’entra: è un canto stonato in partenza. E, se simbolo è di qualcosa, lo è di quella Rivoluzione e del conseguente periodo definito, non a caso, “Terrore”, che non fu poi molto differente dall’orrore provocato dall’Isis. Invocare quelle note è fuori luogo.
Così come fuori luogo, anzi stucchevole è stato sentire il presidente francese Hollande definire l’accaduto come un attentato ai «valori della Repubblica». Quali valori? Quei 129 morti e gli oltre 300 feriti non han versato il loro sangue nemmeno per quel clima soffocante ed oppressivo di laicismo giacobino, imposto in un Paese un tempo figlio prediletto della Cristianità.
Del resto, che cosa si aspettavano in una terra, in cui non solo al Raduno annuale degli islamici di Francia, ma persino nelle scansie dei supermercati è possibile trovare libri che inneggiano all’uso delle armi «per assicurare la supremazia di Allah», nonché alla conquista dell’Europa, come I 40 Hadith, testo che preconizza la morte per gli «apostati» (ergo, per gli islamici, che si convertano a qualsiasi altra confessione), o come La via del musulmano, che predica una jihad esplicitamente «offensiva» e la «pena di morte» per gli «eretici»?
Che cosa si aspettavano in una terra in cui il 50% della carne bovina, il 40% di quella di pollo ed il 95% di quella d’agnello viene macellato col metodo halal ovvero «conforme» alla sharia, alla legge islamica, come denunciato dal volume Bon appetit!, scritto dalla giornalista Anne de Loisy ed uscito nel febbraio scorso? Che cosa si aspettavano in una terra in cui si consente di costituirsi in partito e presentarsi alle elezioni a chi venga a dettar legge in casa altrui, promuovendo l’imposizione del velo, l’istituzione di feste nazionali islamiche, la lingua araba e la revisione dei libri di testo nelle scuole francesi, come nel caso dell’Udmf ovvero Unione dei democratici musulmani di Francia e del Pej ovvero Partito di uguaglianza e giustizia? Che cosa si aspettavano in una terra in cui nelle carceri i detenuti non islamici vengono costretti sotto minaccia da quelli musulmani a rispettare il Ramadan, contando sul silenzio terrorizzato degli agenti di Polizia Penitenziaria, come denunciato nel luglio dell’anno scorso dal settimanale Minute? Chi semina vento, abdicando al proprio dovere di governare una Nazione e lasciandola anzi islamizzare da altri, indisturbati ed impuniti, non può poi pretendere di non raccogliere tempesta.
Chi ha buona memoria ricorderà senz’altro il video diffuso soltanto nel marzo scorso su social e internet, prodotto dall’Alhayat Media Center, l’azienda incaricata della propaganda jihadista. Le parole del canto proposto erano chiare, chiarissime. Si diceva: «Dobbiamo sconfiggere la Francia, dobbiamo umiliarla! Vogliamo vedere la sofferenza e morti a migliaia. La battaglia è iniziata. La vendetta sarà terribile. I nostri soldati sono rabbiosi. La vostra fine sarà orribile. L’islam prevarrà, risponderà con la spada. Chi vorrà opporsi, non conoscerà più la pace. Siamo venuti per dominare ed i nostri nemici periranno. Li elimineremo e lasceremo i loro corpi imputridire».
Allora, forse, quelle parole parvero a qualcuno un semplice spot e furono accolte con una certa indifferenza. C’era già stato l’attacco a Charlie Hebdo, si riteneva che la Francia, il proprio tributo di sangue, l’avesse già pagato. Non era così. Le minacce, i terroristi islamici, non le lanciano mai a caso. In un’intervista, che verrà pubblicata sul prossimo numero del mensile Radici Cristiane, quello di dicembre, presto nelle case degli abbonati, l’antropologa Ida Magli è molto chiara: non crede che l’Occidente possa mai vedere scatenarsi l’inferno, il «giorno J» della jihad, ma per un solo, semplice motivo: perché «l’Occidente si sta ammazzando da solo», grazie anche all’azione di governanti che, avendo giurato fedeltà al proprio Paese ma agendo contro i suoi interessi, «sono spergiuri impegnati ad ucciderci».
Si è sentito anche in questi giorni un gran parlare di islam “moderato”, dimenticando però come il presidente turco Recep Tayyip Erdogan – ritenuto, non a caso e nonostante tutto, da molti, in Occidente, un leader pure “moderato” – abbia esplicitamente dichiarato, nel corso di un’intervista concessa nell’agosto del 2007 a Kanal D Tv: «L’espressione “islam moderato” è turpe ed offensiva. Non c’è alcun islam moderato. L’islam è islam».
Allora, non è cantando la Marseillaise o invocando insussistenti «valori» del laicismo giacobino di Stato, che si piangono davvero quei morti. Versiamo pure lacrime. Ma sono inutili, finché non si aprano gli occhi. Finché cioè, come ha detto l’abbé Guy Pagès, esperto di islam, non la si smetta di considerare «l’islam una religione come un’altra», poiché, così facendo, «spalanchiamo le nostre porte alla guerra di conquista che Allah prescrive a qualsiasi musulmano: “E combatteteli finché la religione non sia interamente per Allah solo” (Corano, 2.193)». Diversamente, piangere non serve. (Mauro Faverzani)

Traditionalists and sedevantists don't want to offend Muslims : no Catholic martyrdom

Related imageSt. Teresa of Avila as a youth, along with her brother Rodrigo, left their home one day to go to the land of the Moors, the area where Muslims were living in Spain.They wanted to be martyred for Christ and His Church. On the way out of Avila, they were discovered by an uncle and that ended their chance to go immediately to Heaven.
Today Catholics in Europe do not have to travel far to go immediately to Heaven.
The opportunity is conveniently available throughout Europe and the USA but religious leaders, including traditionalist Catholics, want a pass.
Worse still they are misleading lay Catholics , on doctrine, and have accepted the liberal  theology on salvation, on Islam, for example, which is irrational, non traditional and heretical.

Related imageThe SSPX bishops nor their lay supporters are willing to say in public that Islam is not a path to salvation according to Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257, 846,845).Even lay leaders of Catholic political organisations are confused.
The priests of the Franciscans of the Immaculate and Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) are also staying shy.They know the Council states all need faith and baptism for salvation and Muslims, Jews and Hindus do not have it.

Related imageThose who are not affirming the Faith have a comfortable life.There is a high standard of living. They have cars, the opportunity to travel and study and life is peaceful.
If they affirmed Ad Gentes 7 in public it would call for a change in lifestyle.
I am thinking of Christopher Ferrara, Michael J.Matt, Roberto De Mattei, the correspondents of Rorate Caeili, the sedevacantists Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada and the sedevacantist blogger at Introibo Ad Altare Dei (who does not write under his real name) who are all accepting liberal theology.
Then there are the conservatives who do not want to be martyred.John Martignoni says the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not explicit and so they cannot be relevant or an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).He is correct. Fine at least he is clear and honest here.

Yet he is not going to comment on Vatican Council II ( LG 16 etc) not  being an exception to the strict interpretation of EENS.He would be contradicting his  Archbishop and many diocesan offices (Religious Education, Evangelisation).Through their responsibilities they hold their allegiance to the USCCB. So he does not choose persecution.
Related imageIt would be obvious to the apologist John Martignoni that the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney was a mistake. There cannot be any known exception to all needing the baptism of water in the Church.We cannot know any one outside the Church, who will be saved without being a formal member of the Church.
But if Martignoni supports Feeneyism he would be saying all Jews and Muslims today need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell.So he says nothing.
-Lionel Andrades

Traditionalists are not saying that Vatican Council II agrees with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct : no comment on Islam and salvation

So many have committed suicide in Paris since Catholic religious leaders have not told them there is a big surprise waiting for them : SSPX is prudently silent too

Michael Matt's response to the Paris terror is the same as Pope Francis 

The new theology of the sedevacantists and traditionalists like that of the liberals says all Muslims do not need to convert into the Catholic Church