The Remnant and Catholic Family News published a Liber of Accusation against Pope Francis however they do not mention the heresy being taught by Catholic organisations with the approval of the two popes.
Here we have Catholic Answers not aware of what is the exact cause of the hermeneutic of continuity. Tim Staples vaguely talks about a dogmatic and pastoral approach.
Pope Framcis like Catholic Answers and EWTN uses a theology, which violates the Principle of Non Contradiction and still after years there is no statement from the writers of the Liber about this.
It is said that there can be no change in the teachings of the Church on faith and morals and yet the teachings on faith have been changed. There are new doctrines on salvation based on the new irrational theology. There is a new ecclesiology of the Church based on the new Cushingite theology.
Trent Horn a Catholic apologist rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since he assumes there are known exceptions and this is the norm also for Pope Francis and the Jesuits.
How can we violate the Principle of Non Contradiction with theology and create new doctrines and a new faith?We have a new salvation theology and this is not mentioned by the writers of the Liber of Accusations.-Lionel Andrades
Heresy is caused by directly not accepting a teaching of the Church which it is necessary to accept. However heresy is also caused if you mix up what is defacto as being dejure ( in principle), is you confuse what is hypothetical as being objective
With this new theology the Principle of Non Contradiction has been violated. There are two teachings in the Church. One is orthodox and the other ambigous. One is rational and the other is irrational
At Catholic Answers Tim Staples and Patrick Coffin do not realize that the issue is faith.The discipline comes later.First there is a change in doctrine and then this is reflected in the new pastoral practise, the change in discipline. It is not vice versa.
Is Salvation Possible for Non-Catholics? : Trent Horn at Catholic Answers assumes Lumen Gentium 16 is not a hypothetical case but refers to someone personally known
(1:04:16) Tim Staples begins to explain the hermenutic of continuity as being one of approach, a dogmatic or pastoral approach.
However if you interpret the baptism of desire as being visible or invisible, as known defacto or hypothetical, changes the heremeneutic of continuity. We have the hermeutic of rupture.
Heresy is caused by directly not accepting a teaching of the Church which it is necessary to accept. However heresy is also caused if you mix up what is defacto as being dejure ( in principle), is you confuse what is hypothetical as being objective.
So the baptism of desire becomes a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so there is a change in a dogma of the Catholic Church.
So the Council with LG 16 (visible) creates a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
For me the LG 16 is invisible and so there is a continuity with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The infallible teaching of the Church referred to in Vatican Council II contradicts Catholic Answers.The Church infallibly taught in in three Church Councils that the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus meant all need to be incorporated into the Church as members.This was de fide.I call this extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyism).
This is rejected by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and also Catholic Answers. We now have a new doctrine. It is extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Cushingite- all need to enter the Church except for some who do not need to enter the Church).
So there is a change in faith.
With this new theology the Principle of Non Contradiction has been violated. There are two teachings in the Church. One is orthodox and the other ambigous. One is rational and the other is irrational.
For instance, I affirm EENS ( Feeneyite - no known exceptions to EENS) and for Catholic Answers it is EENS ( Cushingite- there are known exceptions to EENS Feeneyite).
I affirm Vatican Council II (Feeneyite-LG 16 are not visible but invisible cases) and for Catholic Answers ( LG 16 etc refer to invisible cases and so LG 16 is an exception to EENS Feeneyite).
I affirm the Nicene Creed ( there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, one known baptism).Catholic Answers changes the Nicene Creed to ( I beleive in three or more known baptisms, and they include the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible all without the baptism of water.There are exceptions). For me this is a first class heresy in the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II.
Similarly I interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church with Feeneyism while Catholic Answers does it with irrational and innovative Cushingism.It is magisterial in the present times.The present 'Church' has approved this heresy which is a break with the pre-Council of Trent magisterium. It was done with a new theology.The present Church( with the Baltimore Catechism) has changed the teachings of the past Church ( before the Council of Trent). The change was made with a theology based on an objective error.
So the SSPX and the sedevacantists who affirm the traditional teachings of the Church reject the innovation which has been accepted by Catholic Answers and the present magisterium. These are decisions of "the Church", " our mother".The SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 affirmed the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS. The CDF/Ecclesia Dei refuses to accept this teaching on faith.Teaching on faith and morals? A de fide teaching has been changed. Central to this problem is still extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the injustice done to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
At Catholic Answers Tim Staples and Patrick Coffin do not realize that the issue is faith.The discipline comes later.First there is a change in doctrine and then this is reflected in the new pastoral practise, the change in discipline. It is not vice versa.The cause of the problem is not just disciplinary.
The Priestly Fraternity of St.Peter affirm the faith interpreted with a non traditional theology and so the conclusion is non traditional.Catholic Answers does the same.They accept this conclusion with the new doctrines.
The Society of St. Pius X also affirms the faith interpreted with a non traditional theology and so the conclusion is non traditional.However they do not accept the conclusion and the new doctrines.So they cling to the Traditional Latin Mass which affirmed the old ecclesiology and they cite the saints who did not use the new theology to create new doctrines.
The sedevacantists do the same.
Let me be concrete.
The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as Cushingites.They assume there are known exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.So they offer the Traditional Latin Mass rejecting the dogma EENS as it was interpreted by the 16th century missionaries.
Similarly they interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism. LG 16 refers to known exceptions to the dogma EENS. So Vatican Council II for them is a rupture with EENS ( Feeneyite), the Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition.
So the traditional Catholic faith-teaching has been changed. They have changed salvation theology with a new subjectivism. They assume we can see people saved with the baptism of desire, for example, in Heaven or on earth, without the baptism of water, and they ( unknown persons) are exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
They are simply following the New Theology which is magisterial, even though it is irrational, an innovation and heretical. It contradicts the Principle of Non Contradiction( how can we see or know a baptism of desire case?).
So like I said earlier at Catholic Answers Tim Staples and Patrick Coffin do not realize that the issue is faith.The discipline comes later.First there is a change in doctrine and then this is reflected in pastoral practise. It is not vice versa. As a Catholic who attends the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass my theology is Feeneyite. So Vatican Council II is not a break with the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).SInce I affirm EENS( Feeneyite) I am affirming the traditional ecclesiology of the Church.I am doing this without rejecting Vatican Council II and the dogma EENS. So for me EENS( Feeneyite) and Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) says all Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Orthodox Christians and other non Catholics are oriented to the fires of Hell unless they are incorporated into the Catholic Church as members, with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14).So I affirm Vatican Council II with the old ecclesiology.For me the new ecclesiology of Catholic Answers and the FSSP is heretical, irrational and an innovation in the Church. It causes the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.It can be avoided by Catholic Answers. A rational choice is there. So it cannot be said that I am a radical traditionalist who rejects Vatican Council II. Neither can it be said by the traditionalists that I reject EENS( Feeneyite). -Lionel Andrades
Trent Horn in this video indicates that his understanding of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is Cushingite and not Feeneyite.Like the Protestant caller he would have a problem with the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.
The Feeneyite interpretation of EENS according to me, says there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS. While the Cushingite interpretation of EENS says there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS.
Since Trent Horn holds the Cushingite interpretation of the dogma EENS he interprets being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire with two conditions. 1)They exclude the baptism of water and 2) they are physically visible, that is personally known in the present times.
So he quotes passages from the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a Cushingite. He cites the references to being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.Then he assumes they refer to cases without the baptism of water and are personally known in the present times. So these passages, for him, would contradict the Feeneyite intepretation of the dogma EENS.They would have to be visible and known to contradict the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.
I would accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church passages on being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire or blood. I would however assume that they are a reference to being saved 1) with also the baptism of water in a manner known only to God and 2) it is an invisible case.
That it is an invisible case is the important point. Since even if there was a baptism of case, with or without, the baptism of water, it would still be invisible. So it would not be relevant or an exception to the Feeneyite intepretation of the dogma EENS as it is presntly for Trent Horn and the apologists at Catholic Answers.
So I would affirm the dogma EENS, as it was interpreted over the centuries, and then say that the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846, quoted by Trent, is not an exception to it.Since it refers to a hypothetical and invisible case. A possibility is not a defacto case in 2016, for example. It is not an exception to the interpreation of the dogma EENS according to the Church Fathers.
In CCC 846 cardinals Ratzinger and Schonborn were trying to accomodate the New Theology which makes allowances for invisible cases being visible.This violates the Principles of Non Contradiction.Yet this is the acceptable theology at Catholic Answers.They have a choice. They could interpret CCC 826 and CCC 1257 with Feeneyism.Hypothetical cases could just be accepted as being hypothetical. The wrong inference must not be made here by them.
In 2011, at an Easter Vigil in a simple parish church in New York
State, a number of souls were received into the Catholic Church. As it
does every year, the ceremony moved from the darkness surrounding the Paschal
Fire through the many readings from the Old and New Testament to the
proclamation of the triumph of the Resurrection – reminding all present that the
long reign of Sin and Death has finally ended. On that night, those adults
becoming Catholics made their baptismal promises. They accepted the Truths of
the Faith. They rejected Satan and all his works and all his empty promises.
It is right and fitting that they did so, but for one among them it had an
even greater significance than for the others present that night. Previously, he
had been part of a witch’s coven. For many years, he had practiced its
blasphemous rites, and seen things that he maintains could only have come from
Hell as that is whence he had summoned them.
Of course, Fred Wolff had not always been a Satanist. In fact, he was born,
in 1956, into a New York Jewish family. His family was not overtly religious.
Nevertheless, the boy attended the local synagogue and Hebrew School, and then
duly made his Bar Mitzvah. He left the practise of his faith when aged
16-year-old. A year later he had his first introduction to the Occult.
A friend brought him to meet his cousin. This cousin happened to run an
Occult bookshop in Wolff’s hometown. There, the youth met men who were witches;
soon he was happily being inducted into Wicca. Wicca pretends to be magic of the
sort that harms no one. Looking back, Wolff sees it was harming him,
and more worryingly opening the channel to another deeper, more dangerous,
encounter with evil.
On one level, Wolff’s life appeared normal. In 1977, he joined the Air Force
and was duly posted to different parts of the country. On another level, his
life was anything but normal. In these different postings with the military, he
would be connected to Occult groups that were present wherever he was stationed.
In his own words, such covens are ‘widespread’ – true then, no doubt, even more
so today.
One encounter proved too much, though, and showed where this was ultimately
leading. Wolff was posted to California. A man approached him. As he did so, he
noticed that the man carried a leather case with a Pentagram upon it. This
symbol of devil worship proved to be portentous, for the man was a Satanist. He
invited Wolff to his first Black Mass.
It took place in San Francisco and left the airman traumatised. He had never
experienced anything like it before, despite the many Wicca ceremonies in which
he had taken part. What he does remember of that ‘mass’ was that the chief
‘celebrant’ of its blasphemy was a defrocked Catholic priest.
Here is not the place to recount the vile things witnessed that night as the
Holy Mass was perverted into a sacrilege. What Wolff remembers clearly is that
he was aghast while attending it. But, no matter how frightened he felt of what
was taking place before his eyes, there seemed to be another power, albeit an
invisible one, holding him there, preventing his leaving.
After his discharge from the air force, in 1981, Wolff returned to civilian
life. He also returned to the practise of his pagan ways. Soon he was the High
Priest, so called, of his local coven on Long Island. And, so it remained, and
would have done so, had not a figure from his past reappeared in the winter of
1982. That person was one of the people whom he had met at the Occult bookshop
all those years previously, and who, subsequently, had introduced him to Wicca.
He came with a curious request.
The man was convinced that he had found the ritual and invocations to conjure
up a demon. He asked if Wolff wanted to participate in what he was about to
attempt. More out of curiosity than anything, Wolff agreed; however, what was
about to take place was to change both men’s lives.
A so-called ‘circle of protection’ was marked upon the floor. His friend told
him that as long as they stayed within the circle’s confines they would be
‘safe’. The chanting of the long incantations began. Little did either of them
know of the power of evil and that Satan and his demons have one goal: to
destroy all those with whom they come into contact, ‘friend’ or foe. And yet,
the ritual continued.
As it did so, from the corner of the darkened room, a figure began to appear.
As it came into the light, Wolff remembers it was the most beautiful woman he
had ever seen, with a beauty that was captivating. She beckoned to him to leave
the circle. Somehow, motivated by fear more than anything else, he managed not
to move. It was just as well for within seconds the figure had changed from
beautiful to that of a hideous shape. In fact, he was later to say that it was
the most horrible thing he had ever set eyes on. But, by then, he says, the
‘real show’ had just begun.
The very walls around the two men appeared to melt. And with that, came the
most suffocating and awful smell – a sulphuric smell. Today, Wolff realises that
he was being given his very own glimpse of Hell. Now, he says that when he hears
of people who say that Hell doesn’t exist, he knows they are wrong – he has seen
it, smelt it even.
And, with the coming of Hell, so too arrived one of its occupants as the
summoned demon now made an entry.
The reaction on seeing this shape was one of fear, a paralysing fear. The
demon looked straight at the two men and then laughed at them, asking if they
thought the circle would really keep them safe? Before any answer was uttered,
Wolff’s companion was lifted from the floor and thrown against an adjacent wall
approximately 15 feet away. At this, Wolff could take no more and fled
horror-struck through the house before locking himself in a room.
How long he hid there, he still has no idea. What he does know, in
retrospect, is that if the Hand of the Almighty had not sheltered him that night
he is convinced that he would now be dead. Of this, he is certain.
His companion did not fare so well, however. When Wolff emerged and returned
to the room where the ritual had taken place, he found him lying on the floor,
foaming at the mouth. A police and ambulance were soon in attendance. The police
did not believe Wolff’s story that he had just ‘happened by’ and found his
friend in this state; but there was no overt evidence of violence or drug use
and so the police let it go. Eventually, his friend was taken to a psychiatric
institution on Long Island. He was to die there from self-inflicted wounds some
years later.
Wolff had now seen too much. He wanted out. At last, he sensed the danger he
was in. The next day, he told the other members of the coven of this desire to
leave. They started to threaten him: no one was going anywhere; somehow, he
managed to get away from them and ran to his car parked outside. But try as he
might, the car wouldn’t start. And as he was sitting there, turning the
ignition, suddenly, out of the building from which he had just fled, there
appeared two witches. In the rear-view mirror, he could see that they had
spotted his car. He watched as they seemed to cast a spell at Wolff and his
vehicle. The next moment all he remembers was that the windows of his car blew
out.
It was then the car started, and, seconds later, a dazed Wolff sped off into
the night …
The following day when he went to get the glass repaired, the men doing so
commended him for doing a ‘good job’. He did not understand what they meant. So
they explained that obviously he had cleaned the inside of the car from all the
broken glass. The only thing was, he hadn’t. To this day, Wolff is sure that
something, or someone, had protected him from the force of the blast so as the
shattering glass had been deflected away from him. He thinks this could only
have occurred through the protection of his guardian angel.
At Wolff’s then work place, there was a Christian who had often tried to
speak to him about Christianity. Wolff had never been interested. Now, when he
met the man, he begged him to take him to church. Days later, at a Baptist
church, watched by his surprised work colleague, Wolff accepted Our Lord as his
Saviour. As he was to say later, after the night of that infernal ritual, he
knew he needed a saviour; and, perhaps more importantly, he knew from what he
was being saved.
The years that followed were far from easy. He got married, but the marriage
broke down; he suffered from depression. His church attendance was sporadic. He
had no firm adherence to any of the many Protestant groups he attended. There
was a constant theme running through these groups though. It was a fear of
Catholicism, often dressed up in arguments against or negative comments about
the Church. Paradoxically, these polemics had the opposite effect on Wolff. He
began to read books by authors such as Scott Hahn, Patrick Madrid and other
Catholic apologists. The more he read, the more a shape formed in his
consciousness, but one wholly unlike the hideous figure of that dreadful night
many years ago. This was an altogether different one, and one whose beauty was
true, for it was the Bride of Christ, His Church.
Now, at last, at that Easter Vigil in 2011, in a church dedicated to her who
crushes the head of the serpent, Wolff attended a Holy Mass instead of the
counterfeit he had witnessed in the past, and, having confessed all, received
his Saviour in Holy Communion, and, with it, the peace and joy that casts out
all fear.