Friday, February 12, 2016

Chris Ferrara unknowingly uses an irrational premise and supports magisterial heresy

Related image
Chris Ferrara at (42:05) on the Chris Ferrara-Mark Shea debate video confirms what I have been saying in these blog posts. It is : that the traditionalists are not aware of a magisterial heresy and they support it  unknowingly and in good faith. Chris Ferrara (22:29) affirms  the defined dogma which he says has been abandoned.He quotes the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Council of Florence(41:50).
The dogma explicitly says Jews need to convert into the Church for salvation (42:00) So Jews, and other non Catholics, need to objectively enter the Church to avoid the fires of Hell he says  but adds : putting aside the case of invincible ignorance (42:05) which Pope Pius IX said "Leave that to God'.
Why mention this ? There are no known cases of invincible ignorance who are saved.There are no known cases of persons in invincible ignorance of the Gospel through no fault of their own, who are saved without the baptism of water.There is not a single known case in history.
So why does Chris Ferrara mention (unknown) invincible ignorance as an exception to the dogmatic teaching of the Council of Florence ?
Zero cases of something are not exceptions says John Martignoni.
There are zero cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water.If there was one such person he would be known only to God and would remain unknown to us.
When Chris Ferrara refers to being saved in invincible ignorance it is a sign that he assumes these cases are here on earth, they are known, they are not zero cases, they are known persons saved without the baptism of water.So he has to refer to this exception to the Council of Florence on extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).Otherwise why mention it?
So the dogma says all need to enter the Church and here on line he suggests all do not need to enter the Church since there is a possibility of someone being saved in invincible ignorance and these cases are known to him.This is his theology. It is the official theology of the contemporary magisterium.It is the official error of the contemporary magisterium.
The pre- Council of Trent popes could be responding to a campaign by people who wanted to make invincible ignorance an exception to the dogma EENS. So the popes responded to their questions and campaigns.
If the pope assumed being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire was an exception to the dogma EENS, then he too made an objective mistake. Since objectively there cannot be any case of invincible ignorance for us human beings; for Catholics.
We can give the pope the benefit of the doubt. However the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 makes the offical leap towards heresy.It assumes that these hypothetical cases are explicit. This has been accepted by the SSPX bishops and the late Fr. Gruner. Here we have Chris Ferrara making the same error.
This is magisterial heresy.
It is this magisterial heresy which is being taught at Catholic schools, the schools which Chris Ferrara refers to.
This is official heresy with an irrational reasoning. Chris is using an irrational premise and inference with reference to invincible ignorance and then with the same irrationality he interprets Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance), Vatican Council II. Then with the irrational conclusion he rejects Vatican Council II since it is a break with the dogma EENS on salvation.
Yet if like me he would consider LG 16 as  referring to a possibility known only to God and which would always be  followed by the baptism of water ( since it is dogmatic), then LG 16 would not be a break with the dogma EENS. There would not be a heretical intepretation of EENS or a Cushingite interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Chris Ferrara is using an irrational premise.
I mentioned sometime back that : the root of the problem is the premise.
The root of the problem is the premise.
The root of the problem is the premise.
The root of the problem is the premise.
( I could repeat this 100 times)
The problem is not Vatican Council II since I am interpreting it in perfect harmony with Tradition.No one has been able to contradict me all these years. No one has been able to correct me. While an Archbishop, the Dean of Theology at a Pontifical University in Rome, an American Catholic apologist and many Catholic priests have supported me. The irrationality ( the premise) is being used by all sides in the Franciscan Friars of the  Immaculate stand off.
The irrational premise is the magisterial heresy accepted by Chris Ferrara and Mark Shea.2
-Lionel Andrades

1
FRANCISCAN FRIARS OF THE IMMACULATE STAND OFF : ALL SIDES ARE USING THE FALSE PREMISE IN THE INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/franciscan-friars-of-immaculate-stand.html#links
2.

Here is the irrationality being used by all sides in the FI stand off.

Premise:

1. All salvation in Heaven is physically visible to us on earth.
2. All salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II is physically visible to us on earth. We personally know these cases in 2016.
3.The dead-saved in Heaven are known, explicit for us.They are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
4.Those saved in imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3) are visible to us on earth.So the dogma on exclusive salvation has changed.Protestants are saved in 2016. All do not need to enter the Catholic Church any more.
5.A Protestant can be saved with 'seeds of the Word' (AG 11 etc). This is not implicit but explicit for us.
6.Nostra Aetate (NA 2) has changed the Catholic Church's teachings.Jews, Muslims and others are saved explicitly. There are explicit exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in 2016.
7.Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy since being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) is a known exception to his traditional interpretation of the dogma on salvation.

These are some aspects of how the false premise is used. I have been calling it the dead-saved and visible theory, or the dead man walking theory or the dead man walking and visible theory.
I have been joking about seeing the dead downtown, meeting ghosts and shaking their hands on the streets.- from http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/michael-davis-romano-amerio-dietrich_11.html

Michael Davis, Romano Amerio, Dietrich von Hildebrand were not aware of the irrational premise : Michael Mat, Chris Ferrara, John Rao, James Bogle, Joseph Shaw agree?


http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/michael-davis-romano-amerio-dietrich_11.html



THE VIDEO IS UP! IT IS HERE!!!!!
Chris Ferrara Vs Mark Shea
http://www.aotmclub.com/index.asp?pageID=18



There can be mission Ad Gentes with Feeneyism or Cushingism. We can choose.For Pope Francis and the Jesuits it is mission with Cushingism http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/02/their-can-be-mission-ad-gentes-with.html



There can be mission Ad Gentes with Feeneyism or Cushingism. We can choose.For Pope Francis and the Jesuits it is mission with Cushingism

THE VIDEO IS UP! IT IS HERE!!!!!
Chris Ferrara Vs Mark Shea
http://www.aotmclub.com/index.asp?pageID=18

 
Related image

Chris Ferrrara 1 has said that the trouble in the Church has begun with the introduction of  novelties. This ' is just an end point of a trajectory that began 50 years ago with three novelties into the life of the Church dialogue, inter religious dialogue and ecumenism and the result has been a defacto suspension of the Divine Commission of much of the human element of the Church...Church men'.So for him in the Church, there is no more the Great Commission to go out to people and seek their conversion to save their soul.
For me, dialogue and ecumenism is only an issue when the liberals and traditionalists theologically reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by assuming there is known salvation outside the Church; there are known cases of people in Heaven who are there without the baptism of water.Both Chris Ferrara and Mark Shea assume, whether they know it or not, that hypothetical cases are objectively known, physically visible in 2016 and these hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions, to all needing to formally enter the Church; all needing to have their names on the Parish Baptism Register to avoid Hell.
So Chris says he affirms the teaching outside the Church there is no salvation but theologically, like the rest of the Church he assumes every one does not need to enter the Church. Mark Shea also says every one needs to believe in Jesus for salvation, all religions are not the same and that we pray for the coversion of souls but theologically there are exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma EENS, for him.
So for them it would be normal to have inter- religious dialogue or ecumenism asssuming there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS. I call this Cushingism.
Chris does not like dialogue and ecumenism  over the last 50 years. It clearly is being done with Cushingism. For Mark Shea it would be normal to have dialogue with Cushingism, and since there is salvation outside the Church for Cushingites, he could see Protestants and other Christians being saved who are not formal members of the Church. So for him every one would not have to have to be a card carrying member of the Catholic Church to be saved.This is the ecumenism which Chris Ferrara objects to.
So they both agree that our mission is to call people into the Church and the Holy Spirit would do the conversion while we only witness to the Faith. However they both mean that we should witness as Cushingites. This is their error.
Since there is a choice.
They do not know about the choice.
They can also evangelise and witness, if they want to, as Feeneyites and not Cushingites. Ecumenism and inter religious dialogue is not a problem when the theology used is Feeneyite; when the ecclesiology in the interpretation of Vatican Council II for example, is based on exclusivism.With an excluvist ecclesiology inter religious dialogue and ecumenism is traditional. This would be possible simply by recognising hypothetical cases as being hypothetical only. It's as simple as this.It is so simply that all of us have overlooked it all this time.
There can be mission Ad Gentes with Feeneyism or Cushingism. We can choose.For Pope Francis and the Jesuits it is mission with Cushingism.
-Lionel Andrades

1
Chris Ferrara - Mark Shea debate : both are theologically rejecting the dogma EENS