Monday, August 15, 2016

Fr.John Zuhlsdorf's heresy


Related image I am reminded of the case of Fr. Leonard Feeney, SJ, who took a hard-line position about the truth of the Catholic doctrine, “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus … outside the Church there is no salvation”.-Fr.John Zuhlsdorf
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2016/08/a-major-step-forward-in-relations-with-the-sspx-i-hope-so/

Fr.John Zuhlsdorf calls Fr. Leonard Feeney's intepretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as hardline.He infers that there is another interpretation of the dogma defined by three Church Councils.
On other posts on his blog he saw  the Baptism of Desire as a non hypothetical case.So it was a visible exception to the 'hard line interpretation' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus( EENS) by Fr. Leonard Feeney.Similarly according to his previous posts, being saved in invincible ignorance also referred to explicit and non hypothetical cases, known in the present times. So invincible ignorance is an exception to the dogma EENS according to Fr. Z.
Like the liberal theologians in the USA he is  re-interpreting the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as referring to non imaginary cases and so they are defacto exceptions to the dogma EENS in 2016.
At the same time he would affirm the Council of Florence 1441 on EENS.Even though this Council did not mention the baptism of desire etc as an exception. The  text does not refer to any exception.
So for the Internet Padre Vatican Council II is Cushingite and a break with Tradition.While he is not aware of Vatican Council II (Feeneyite),which I affirm, or is afraid to talk about it.
16_08_14_Madonna_del_Soccorso_01
Vatican Council II Cushingite is heretical.Appropriately in another blog post Fr.Z refers to Our Lady the Destroyer of Heresies and ask her to pray for us.
He like the liberals interprets EENS with Cushingism, believes there is salvation outside the Church and there is the Anonymous Christian . So Fr. Z approves of inter-faith marriages.He does not believe the couple are in adultery.Liberal priests are permitting Catholics to marry Protestants and non Christians in church and he approves of it.
Fr.Zuhlsdorf's position on Vatican Council II is vague and ambivalent.Similarly the ecclesiology with which he offers the Traditional Latin Mass is based on the new theology.This is a rupture with the theology of the Latin Mass before the Council of Trent.His theology is heretical but it is magisterial.So he can get away with it.It is approved by the USSCB bishops and the Vatican Curia. It is fantasy theology, which is a necessity for incardinated.Even the SSPX is uses this heretical new theology, the prcedent being set by Archbishop Lefebvre.
Pope Pius XII did not correct the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston while Pope Piux X allowed the error from the Baltimore Catechism to remain snug in his catechism.

WHAT A SCORE
So in Fr. John Zuhlsdorf's 'soft line' interpretation of EENS the dogma is Cushingite.He is in line with the liberal theologians.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to real and not imaginary cases.So it contradicts the dogma EENS according to the Council of Florence.For him the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 did not make an objective mistake and there was no confusion in the Baltimore Catechism and those that followed.

WHAT A CONCLUSION
His conclusion is that Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition.
He does not interpret Vatican Council II as a continuation with Tradition and the Feeneyite version of the dogma EENS.He uses the new theology while I reject it.

NEW THEOLOGY IS FLAWED
According to the new theology which is based on Cushingism, there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS and these known exceptions are there in Vatican Council II. So there are objective exceptions to EENS ( Feeneyite) in Vatican Council II.Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) is in sync with EENS( Cushingite).
-Lionel Andrades



TERMS DEFINED

Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reaoning which says there are no  known exceptions past or present, to the dogma EENS.There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.
Cushingism:  It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes  there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS, on the need for all to formally enter the Church.It assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.
Baptism of  Desire. It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it is not relevant to the dogma EENS.
Invincible Ignorance. This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.
Council of Florence.One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exceptions.
Liberal theologians.They reinterpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.
Vatican Council II(Cushingite). It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Cushingism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.
Vatican Council II (Feeneyite).It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite-one baptism),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and  the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.
Baltimore Catechism. It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.
Catechism of Pope X. It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.
________________________

Lionel: He affirms Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) and the dogma EENS ( Feeneyite) and , is waiting for the rest of the Church to follow.
John Martignoni: The American Catholic apologist.He says the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to 'zero cases' in our reality. So they are not exceptions to EENS.
Fr.S.Visintin osb: He is the  Dean of Theology at the St.Anselm Pontifical University in Rome.He  agrees with Martignoni.
__________________________


JULY 27, 2016


Cardinal Burke and Fr.John Zuhlsdorf are not speaking with clarity.It needs to be said that all non Catholics are on the way to Hell unless they convert into the Church and Vatican Council II says this. I repeat Vatican Council II says so
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/cardinal-burke-and-frjohn-zuhlsdorf-are.html


Fr.John Zuhlsdorf repeats Marchetti's error on the baptism of blood


Fr.John Zuhlsdorf interprets Vatican Council II with Marchetti's theory so the Council for him is ambigous and a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus


Fr.Z approves of adultery in inter faith marriages


http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/frz-approves-of-adultery-in-inter-faith.html

February 3, 2015 
Rorate Caeili and Fr.Zuhlsdorf's interpretations are politically correct
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/rorate-caeili-and-frzuhlsdorfs.html

If the SSPX is unilaterally accepted by the Vatican it still means that the SSPX is condoning a heretical and non traditional interpretation of Vatican Council II, as is being done by Fr. Z  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/if-sspx-is-unilaterally-accepted-by_13.html


9 comments:

Anonymous said...

You wrote that Baptism of Desire " It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it is not relevant to the dogma EENS."

1.EENS means belonging to the Church.

2. By "hypothetical" and "invisible" you put yourself in a heretical position.

3. Is the hypothesis capable of being fulfilled or not? Another words, is it like saying, "Suppose God told us a lie..." God cannot lie, so just saying that it could happen is heresy. Vatican 2 taught heresy through hypotheticals if this is what you mean.

3. If it's a hypothetical that CAN be fulfilled (there are people saved by BOD, but we just can't see it) then it is NOT true that all need baptism by water to be saved because God can be saving people by BOD right now, we just don't see it or know it. That would make three Councils wrong because they don't admit of invisible exceptions. "All" means everyone whether or not we see them.

4. Today, I went to Mass for the Assumption of Mary. You claim we can't see people in Heaven so how did Pope Pius XII infallibly define it? Did he see Mary's body in Heaven? The Bible says nothing about the Assumption. But if it's infallible it must be true. So either the infallible definition is wrong because we can't see Mary's body in Heaven in 2016 (or any other year), or it is possible to know about the dead in Heaven without seeing them. Which is it?

Catholic Mission said...


You wrote that Baptism of Desire " It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it is not relevant to the dogma EENS."
Lionel:
Yes.
____________

1.EENS means belonging to the Church.
Lionel:Yes.It means all need to formally enter the Church, all need faith and baptism for salvation.
______________________

2. By "hypothetical" and "invisible" you put yourself in a heretical position.
Lionel:
Baptism of desire(BOD) is hypothetical and invisible for us human beings.Is it not hypothetical and invisible for you?
I am not denying BOD.I am saying that it can only be implicit for us and explicit for God. So I accept implicit, hypothetical for us BOD and reject visible for us BOD.
____________________

3. Is the hypothesis capable of being fulfilled or not? Another words, is it like saying, "Suppose God told us a lie..." God cannot lie, so just saying that it could happen is heresy. Vatican 2 taught heresy through hypotheticals if this is what you mean.
Lionel:
If the hypothetical case is fulfilled at some time it would be known only to God.For you and me the BOD case does not exist.
___________________

3. If it's a hypothetical that CAN be fulfilled (there are people saved by BOD, but we just can't see it) then it is NOT true that all need baptism by water to be saved because God can be saving people by BOD right now, we just don't see it or know it. That would make three Councils wrong because they don't admit of invisible exceptions. "All" means everyone whether or not we see them.
Lionel:
Even if the hypothetical can theoretically be fulfilled it still is hypothetical. It is ' a zero case' for us.So it has nothing to do with us. It has nothing to do with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
I cannot say that God is saying 20 people this year with BOD. Or 25 last year.
Hypothetically in a discusion we may discuss different aspects of this subject however it is not related to EENS in any way.Since it does not exist in our reality.
___________________________________

4. Today, I went to Mass for the Assumption of Mary. You claim we can't see people in Heaven so how did Pope Pius XII infallibly define it? Did he see Mary's body in Heaven? The Bible says nothing about the Assumption. But if it's infallible it must be true. So either the infallible definition is wrong because we can't see Mary's body in Heaven in 2016 (or any other year), or it is possible to know about the dead in Heaven without seeing them. Which is it?
Lionel:
We cannot know of a case like the Assumption in 2016. We cannot see any one going to Heaven like Our Lady. The Pope in faith declared the dogma of the Assumption.
Similarly in faith and based on Scripture and Tradition, the popes and Church Councils, defined the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The dogma does not mention any exceptions.
I usually emphasize that we cannot see the dead in Heaven.I do this since in general Catholics say that the baptism of desire etc is an exception to the dogma EENS. So if it is any exception to EENS then it must mean there is a physical case of an exception.Someone in Heaven is an exception on earth to the dogma EENS ?.It is in response to this general error that I mention that we cannot see any exceptions to the dogma, since,if the BOD case existed, he or she would be in Heaven.
_____________________________________

Anonymous said...

So for you BOD may exist. Just because it is invisible doesn't make it less real, and three Councils could be wrong. God could be saving people with BOD invisibly right now. Just because we can't see something doesn't make it "not part of our reality" We can't see planets 100 million light years away, but they are real.

Who saw the Assumption? If it must be believed in Faith, then the Church can be correct about people in Heaven without seeing them. Is this not true or must we see them? If we must see them, the Assumption must be rejected as irrational. If we must accept it on Faith, then the Church can know about people in Heaven (with or without a body, etc) without being able to see them. Which is it?

Catholic Mission said...

August 16, 2016 at 2:00 PM Anonymous said...
So for you BOD may exist.
Lionel:
Yes and for me this theoretical case would be followed with the baptism of water.
__________________________

Just because it is invisible doesn't make it less real, and three Councils could be wrong.
Lionel:
Are you saying invisible cases are practical exceptions to all practically needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church to be saved?
___________________________

God could be saving people with BOD invisibly right now.
Lionel:
O.K.You can believe this but do not assume it is an exception or relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since if you say it is an exception( as did the Letter 1949) then you infer that it is physically known to be an exception.
_______________________________

Just because we can't see something doesn't make it "not part of our reality" We can't see planets 100 million light years away, but they are real.
Lionel:O.K.We believe in many things which we cannot see.I agree.
But can you see the baptism of desire case? Is there any such real case for you?
________________________________

Who saw the Assumption? If it must be believed in Faith, then the Church can be correct about people in Heaven without seeing them. Is this not true or must we see them?
Lionel:
You may believe in the Assumption and also the baptism of desire with or without the baptism of water.Belief in either of the two is not an issue.
Since you would also be saying that they are not physically seen.This is important. Since we agree that they are not physically seen they are not relevant to the dogma EENS.
We both believe in the Assumption of Our Lady and we know it is not physically visible.
Pope Pius XII also believed in the Assumption of Our Lady. He also believed in the possibility of the catechumen being saved who desired the baptism of water but died before he recived it.However he did not correct the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. He let it pass through.The Letter infers that the baptism of desire refers to a physically known case.It suggests that the Baptism of Desire is an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.
This is contrary to the faith of the Church on salvation.
__________________________

If we must see them, the Assumption must be rejected as irrational.
Lionel:
We can believe in the Assumption, in faith.A non Catholic may choose not to believe in it.
However the non Catholic and Catholic would agree that we physically cannot see people in Heaven. We physically cannot see a person's soul.We physically cannot see the baptism of desire case.
So if we cannot physically see the baptism of desire case in 2016 where is the physical case to contradict EENS?
CONTINUED

Catholic Mission said...

CONTINUED

If we must accept it on Faith, then the Church can know about people in Heaven (with or without a body, etc) without being able to see them. Which is it?
Lionel:
The Church says the saints are in Heaven and we accept it.
However for the Church to say that someone is in Heaven without the baptism of water would mean contradicting the dogma EENS.In faith we also affirm the dogma EENS.It was a dogma like the Assumption.
Then there is the practical issue.How could 'the Churc'h say, for example, that St. Emerentiana is in Heaven with or without the baptism of water?
In faith,the Church is saying that she is in Heaven without the baptism of water?
The Church is saying there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS ? This is heresy.
_____________________________

Even if it is heresy for the contemporary magisterium the bottom line is that there are no such exceptions to EENS in 2016.Practically there are no exceptions to EENS.
So we cannot create a theology based on these non existing exceptions.
We cannot assume that accepting the baptism of desire in faith is creating a practical exception to EENS.
The saints and popes with good will or faith mentioned the baptism of desire( or the case of the catechumen), we cannot believe that any of them were referring to a practical exception to EENS.Yet this was the very error made by the liberal theologians in the USA.
_________________________

Catholic Mission said...

TERMS EXPLAINED
Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reaoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma EENS.There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.

Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS, on the need for all to formally enter the Church.It assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.

Baptism of Desire: It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it is not relevant to the dogma EENS.

Invincible Ignorance: This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.

Council of Florence.One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exceptions.

Liberal theologians:They reinterpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.

Vatican Council II(Cushingite): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Cushingism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.

Vatican Council II (Feeneyite):It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite-one baptism),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell.

Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston: It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.

Baltimore Catechism: It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.
CONTINUED

Catholic Mission said...

CONTINUED

Catechism of Pope X: It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.

Nicene Creed ( Cushingite): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means there are more than three known baptisms. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc.

Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.

New Theology: It refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Cushingite):It refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto convert into the Church in the present times, since there are exceptions.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Feeneyite):It refers to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.

Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Cushingite):CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction. Also CCC 848 is based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).

Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Feeneyite):CCC 1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known exceptions, since God is not limited to the Sacraments.

When CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needin to formally enter the Church. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation.

________________________

Anonymous said...

So for you BOD may exist.
Lionel:
Yes and for me this theoretical case would be followed with the baptism of water.

Then it's not BOD. BOD does not involve water, so you deny it.

The Church says the saints are in Heaven and we accept it.

Why? Who sees these saints in Heaven? Isn't that irrational? You claim to see the dead. Is a canonization infallible? If yes, we can know about souls in Heaven without seeing them. If not, maybe they made a mistake in canonizing someone and we're praying to someone in Hell!

We can believe in the Assumption, in faith.A non Catholic may choose not to believe in it.

Why believe it on faith? It's irrational if you can't see Mary in Heaven. It either happened or it did not happen. If it's infallible, we must believe it and tell the non-Catholic he is wrong. Then he will expose us as irrational because we can't see Mary with her body in Heaven, so the infallible pronouncement is irrational and must be rejected. But if you reject an infallible teaching you are a heretic, no longer a Catholic.

How can the Magisterium teach irrational things like the Assumption and BOD? What kind of teaching authority is that?

Catholic Mission said...


So for you BOD may exist.
Lionel:
Yes and for me this theoretical case would be followed with the baptism of water.

Then it's not BOD. BOD does not involve water, so you deny it.
Lionel:
For me it does.Otherwise I would be denying the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).
So you accept BOD( Cushingite) and I accept BOD ( Feeneyite).You reject BOD (Feeneyite).
________________________

The Church says the saints are in Heaven and we accept it.

Why? Who sees these saints in Heaven? Isn't that irrational?
Lionel:
The issue here is the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).Are there any exceptions to EENs( Feeneyite). Since you accept BOD (Cushingite) and reject EENS( Feeneyite)I assume you can physically see exceptions. You can see exceptions who are personal and real for you and they could be in Heaven and/or on earth.This is the issue.

Faith is not the issue. I believe in the Assumption of Our Lady and another person may not choose to believe in it.People in general physically ccanot see see people dead and who are in Heaven. Yet this is your position with BOD (Cushingite) and EENS( Cushingite).
_________________________

You claim to see the dead.
Lionel: In faith I accept the Assumption of Our Lady. I do not say that she is in Heaven without the baptism of water.Physically I cannot see Our Lady in Heaven.
I faith I accept St. Emerentiana is in Heaven. I do not say that she is there without the baptism of water.No one could have physically seen her in Heaven with ot without the baptism of water.
Your faith would include believing that she went to Heaven without the baptism of water.
__________________________

Is a canonization infallible? If yes, we can know about souls in Heaven without seeing them.
Lionel. Yes in faith.
__________________________

If not, maybe they made a mistake in canonizing someone and we're praying to someone in Hell!

We can believe in the Assumption, in faith.A non Catholic may choose not to believe in it.

Why believe it on faith? It's irrational if you can't see Mary in Heaven.
Lionel:
I do not need to physically see people in Heaven to believe they are there.I say we physically cannot see BOD cases in Heaven or earth since it is common for Catholics to assume that BOD is an exception to EENS( Feeneyite).I am responding to the errors made by many.
Otherwise for me, faith in itself is not an issue.
Believe in BOD but do not assume it is an exception to EENS(Feeneyite).
If the magisterium says we need to beleive in an explicit BOD with reference to EENS it is irrational, non traditional and heretical.
I can affirm BOD ( Feeneyite) and also EENS( Feeneyite) without denying the Faith.
_________________________


It either happened or it did not happen. If it's infallible, we must believe it and tell the non-Catholic he is wrong.
Lionel:
Yes with reference to Faith in general.
__________________________

Then he will expose us as irrational because we can't see Mary with her body in Heaven, so the infallible pronouncement is irrational and must be rejected. But if you reject an infallible teaching you are a heretic, no longer a Catholic.
Lionel: Yes.
The dogma EENS is also an infallible teaching. It does not mention BOD (Cushingite) or EENs( Cushingite).
______________________________

How can the Magisterium teach irrational things like the Assumption and BOD?
Lionel:
Pope Pius XII was correct on the Marian dogma. However he overlooked the error in the Fr. Leomard Feeney case. There cannot be a BOD(Cushingite) or EENS( Cushingite).
_____________________________


What kind of teaching authority is that?
Lionel:
The Masons have infiltrated the Church.