Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Pope Benedict's heretical interview to Avvenire prepares Catholics to receive a sacrilegeous Synod report after Easter

Image result for Photo of Catholic  Pope FrancisSynodImage result for Photo of Cardinal Kasper
No one could have seen someone saved outside the Church without the baptism of water.So how could Rahner and Ratzinger support a new theology based on this irrationality. How could they asssume that someone saw a person saved outside the Church? There can be no empirical proof of salvation outside the Church so how can it be claimed for example, that the baptism of desire exists without the baptism of water and so it contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
How can there be 'a development of doctrine' based on salvation outside the Church?
Cardinal Walter Kaspar once said in an interview that if ecclesiology can be changed then the teaching on the divorced receiving the Eucharist can also be changed.He  meant there was a development of doctrine and the dogma EENS was discarded.It was eliminated  with the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology.This theology is based on there being salvation outside the Church.
So now when the Synod Report will be  issued after Easter, as Kaspar announced, it will say the divorced and remarried can receive the Eucharist.Then when the opposition asks where is the precedent for this action .Kaspar will cite the interview given by Pope Benedict XVI to Avvenire .The pope said the dogma EENS as the 16th century missionaries knew it no longer exists.It has been developed.It has been developed so much that the original meaning has been changed.
So if the dogma EENS can be changed or discarded, Kaspar will ask, then why not also other teachings of the Church?
Ecclesiology has been changed  since now marriages with Jews and other non Catholics are permitted. The couple is no more considered as being in mortal sin.There is known salvation outside the Church according to the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology. So the Jew is not outside the Church and the Catholic in that marriage is not living in adultery.
The popes no more say that in inter faith marriages the Catholic is living in adultery and mortal sin. Instead a 'dispensation' is given by a bishop who usually does not beleive in the dogma EENS.
 The traditionalists and sedevacantists too accept the new theology, which is responsible for this change in ecclesiology.They say there is known salvation outside the Church. So there was no opposition to the Pope Benedict  denial of the dogma EENS.
 Cardinal Raymond Burke, the Polish Curia and Bishop Athanasius Schneider have not opposed Pope Benedict's statement which was a denial of a dogma. It was the rejection of a doctrine.Since it is acceptable for them too that there is no more a dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church, since there is known salvation outside the Church as the new theology says.
Instead they should have protested.There cannot be a development of doctrine on EENS, since there is no known salvation outside the Church, there cannot be known salvation outside the Church for us human beings.
There was not a single objection to the change in Catholic doctrine.
Now the popes and the political Left, want a big compromise on the Eucharist.So Cardinal Kaspar and Pope Benedict will say that if ecclesiology can be changed with a  defined dogma being set aside and this has been accepted by the traditionalists, including the SSPX, then why not the doctrine and practise of giving the Eucharist to persons in mortal sin also not be changed?
Perhaps Pope Benedict's heretical announcement,was a preparation for announcing sacrilege approved by the 'Synod Fathers', who all believe there is known salvation outside the Church. So for them the Apostles , the Church Fathers and Medieval Fathers, the popes and saints over the centuries, were all wrong, they made a mistake. They did not know that there was known salvation outside the Church when they supported the dogmatic teaching.They supported a dogma which is the basis of an exclusivist ecclesiology, the non-separation of Church and state, the need for non Catholics and non Christians to formally convert into the Church to avoid Hell, the need for Catholics to marry only Catholics ....-Lionel Andrades

Fr.Z approves of adultery in inter faith marriages
You can interpret Vatican Council II without the new theology. Try it and see.

Rahner's Anonymous Christian is main line Catholic theology : coming back full circle



Remnant Clergy said...

Heretical Feeney ite.

Catholic Mission said...

I do not know what is your concept of Feeneyism and heresy.
I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) like the Church Councils and popes.
I also affirm implicit for us baptism of desire. I accept the baptism of desire as being hypothetical and not objectively seen. This is common sense.It can only be theoretical for us, a possibility.So I am not denying the possibility of a person being saved with the baptism of desire. For me it will be followed with the baptism of water since this is the dogmatic teaching of EENS.
So I affirm the dogma EENS as it was defined by three Church Councils and I also accept being saved with the baptism of desire or blood, or in invincible ignorance.
I reject a physically visible for us baptism of desire or blood, or being saved in invincible ignorance.
Similarly I accept Vatican Council II. For me LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, AG 11 ( seeds of the Word)etc refer to hypothetical cases.They are not explicit for me.
I reject a Vatican Council II in which LG 16 etc are assumed to be visible and not invisible.
So I am affirming Vatican Council II in harmony with the dogma EENS as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.
I interpret magisterial documents with Feeneyism ( there are no known exceptions to EENS) and I reject the interpretation of magisterial documents with Cushingism ( there are known exceptions to EENS).
So you cannot say that I am in heresy since I affirm EENS, the baptism of desire etc and Vatican Council II. I accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted with rational Feeneyism and reject an interpretation of the Catechism with irrational Cushingism.

For me the contemporary magisterium is a break with the pre- Counci of Trent magisterium since they interpret magisterial documents with irrational Cushingism as a theology.The centuries old magisterium did not use Cushingism.
With Cushingism Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of discontinuity. With Feeneyism Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of discontinuity.
The present magisterium interprets Vatican Council II with an irrationality, heresy and a break with Tradition. I am not obliged to follow when a rational, non heretical and Traditional alternative is available.