Pope Francis is in specific doctrinal heresy knowingly or unknowingly and Jose Galat must show him his error
Steve Skojec writes
But skepticism, difficulties, doubts, and questions are just that. They do not rise to the level of certitude. They do not give to any of us the right to make formal declarations of fact when we don’t even have all of the information needed to make a determination, let alone the authority to do so. These things, by their nature, give rise to uncertanties, not the other way around. And we should give these uncertanties to God in prayer, asking Him to guide us and to aid and restore His Church.https://onepeterfive.com/the-galat-case-a-lesson-in-prudence-for-papal-critics/
'They do not give to any of us the right to make formal declarations of fact when we don’t even have all of the information needed to make a determination, let alone the authority to do so'
Lionel: MAIOREM HAC DILECTIONEM IS HERETICAL Pope Francis’ motu proprio “Maiorem hac dilectionem” is heretical since with an irrational premise he has changed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Nicene Creed.He has replaced Vatican Council II Feeneyite, with Vatican Council II Cushingite.He has re-interpreted the Catechisms with a fantasy premise. He has re-interpreted the popes and saints on the baptism of desire, blood and being saved in invincible ignorance as referring to visible instead of invisible cases.In other words people in Heaven are visible on earth.Then he concludesd that there is known salvation outside the Church.These are known people saved outside the Church.So all non Catholics are not going to Hell-instead many could officially be declared saints.
POPE FRANCIS INTERPRETS MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS USING A FALSE PREMISE
Jose Galat, director of the Great Colombia university and Teleamiga television network needs to concretely show with theology and doctrine how Pope Francis is interpreting magisterial documents with a false premise to create a non traditional conclusion.He can do it. It is simple. He has to explain how Pope Francis has theologically and doctrinally created a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). The new doctrine, the bad fruit, can be seen in “Maiorem hac dilectionem”, which Galat has correctly criticized on the TV program Coffee with Galat.
FIRST STEP GALAT AND THE COLOMBIAN UNIVERSITY NEED TO TAKE.
Jose Galat needs to start with Vatican Council II and interpret it with Feeneyism instead of Cushingism.He then must ask the Colombian bishop's conference and Pope Francis to do the same. Their present interpretation of Vatican Council II with Cushngism is heretical.It is magisterial heresy.
He then needs to affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) as being in harmony with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus( Feeneyite) i.e as the dogma was interpreted by the magisterium and missionaries in the 16th century.Then he must ask the Colombian bishop's conference and the popes to do the same.They have formally rejected the dogma EENS with Vatican Council II(Cushingite).
After he has affirmed Vatican Council II and EENS (Feeneyite) and interpreted all magisterial documents with Feeneyism he needs to also ask Pope Benedict XVI to do the same.
Galat could announce that Pope Benedict XVI was promoting Masonic heresy in 2016 when he said in the Avvenire interview that EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century, since there was 'a development' with Vatican Council II.Pope Benedict was interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism and then projecting this irrational interpretation as a rupture with EENS ( Feeneyite) and the Syllabus of Errors.
THESE ARE NOT VAGUE ACCUSATIONS OF HERESY
So these are concrete steps Jose Galat can take. They are precise and specific. They are not vague accusations of heresy against the Colombian bishops and Pope Francis. Instead they are precise and clear accusation of doctrinal heresy the Nicene Creed(Feeneyite) has been re-interpreted making it the Nicene Creed (Cushingite), extra ecclesiam nulla salus(Feeneyite) has been replaced with EENS(Cushingite) and Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church(Feeneyite) has been replaced with the irrational Cushingite version.Church doctrine has been changed with the use of a false premise(invisible people are visible).
COLOMBIAN BISHOPS AND POPE FRANCIS MAY NOT ACCEPT THE OLD ECCLESIOLOGY (FEENEYISM)
Without this false premise the Church returns to the old ecclesiology in magisterial documents. The Nicene Creed, extra ecclesiam nullas salus, Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church can be interpreted traditionally and this would be objectionable for the Colombian bishops and liberal bishops conferences and perhaps also for Pope Francis. SPECIFIC DOCTRINAL AND NOT PASTORAL ISSUE
Presently when Galat points out to the Eucharist being given to the divorced and remarried the Vatican Curia states that this is pastoral and doctrine has not be changed. When it is said that the Eucharist is being given to politicians who support abortion, it is said that the politicians are in mortal sin and the faith and moral teachings are not being discarded.
Now with Cushingism we have a doctrinal issue.
Doctrine is being changed with an irrational premise.
With this approach Jose Galat could show that he is affirming all magisterial documents with a rational and traditional theology while the pope is not.Doctrine is at issue. FORMAL HERESY
He could state that The pope is re-interpreting the Nicene Creed with the irrational premise and this is formal heresy.
The pope is re-interpreting Vatican Council II also with the irrational premise to create a non traditional and heretical conclusion which is a rupture with the past. This also is formal heresy.
The pope is rejecting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the magisterium in the 16th century by assuming the baptism of the desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to physically visible and personally known people saved outside the Church, saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. This is formal heresy and philosophical irrationality.
This is not vague speculation.
Steve Skojec says:
Speculation on these matters might feel cathartic, but it helps nothing. It does not remove him from office. It does not change what is being done...
It is not speculation. For Pope Francis invisible cases of the baptism of desire are visble exceptions to the dogma EENS.
NOT VAGUE SPECULATION For him LG 16, LG 8, LG 14, UR 3, NA 2, AG 7, AG 11, GS 22 refer to visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the old ecclesiolgy. Without this irrationality Vatican Council II is not a rupture with EENS( Feeneyite) which is traditional.The pope does not affirm Vatican Council II(Feeneyite).So this is not vague speculation. It is something specific. NICENE CREED REFERS TO KNOWN BAPTISMS OUTSIDE THE CHURCH FOR THE POPE
Similarly when I pray the Nicene Creed, I say ' I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin' and I mean one known baptism. For Pope Francis and the Jesuits, after the Fr.Leonard Feeney case, they mean 'I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sin and they exclude the baptism of water, they are the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance'.Known baptisms? This is a specific new doctrine. It is not speculation.
Steve Skojec writes:
On the other hand, if Galat could have just refrained from arrogating to himself the authority to say with certainty what we cannot know with certainty, he might never have wound up in trouble in the first place.
POPE FRANCIS WILL NOT AFFIRM VATICAN COUNCIL II (FEENEYITE) This is false on the doctrinal issue. Since we know with certainity that the pope interprets Vatican Council II as a rupture with magisterial documents by using an irrationality. He supports this non traditional and heretical interpretation of the Council. While he, and Pope Benedict do not affirm Vatican Council II without the irrationality. They do not affirm Vatican Council II( Feeneyite).
Whatever happens with Galat — and we should hope and pray that he receives justice, not the jackboot — it’s a lesson for all of us. One we’d do well not to forget.-Steve Skojec It is time for Steve Skojec to set aside his worldly prudence and affirm the Catholic Faith with Feeneyism as a theology and help Jose Galat and Pope Francis to do the same.This is Jesus' Church and we must not promote deception.-Lionel Andrades
Feeneyism:It is the old theology and philosophical reasoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.It is practical. There obviously are no known cases of the baptism of desire (BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) in 2017.So there are no practical exceptions to EENS.Neither was BOD,BOB and I.I an exception to Feeneyite EENS in 1949 when the Letter of the Holy Office was issued to the Archbishop of Boston. The cardinals made an objective mistake.Similarly mentioning BOD and I.I in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) relative to the traditional teaching on salvation was superfluous.It was a mistake to mention it in Lumen Gentium 16.
Cushingism:It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning.It 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.Austin Invereigh like most Catholkics today intepret Vatican Council II with Cushingism. So Lumen Gentium 16 being physically visible and personally known would be an exception to the dogma EENS, it would be a rupture with Tradition.
We can interpret magisterial documents with Feeneyism or Cushingism.This is a choice available also for the two living popes.
Baptism of Desire(Feeneyite):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.It is not an exception to Feeneyite EENS. Baptism of Desire(Cushingite):It refers to the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is a visible case it is relevant to the dogma EENS. Invincible Ignorance( Feeneyite):This refers tothe hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was ignorant of Jesus and the Catholic Church.Since it is a hypothetical and theoretical case it is not and never was an exception to Feneeyite EENS.
Invincible Ignorance(Cushingite):This refers tothe explicit case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance of the Gospel, he did not know about Jesus and the Church.Since it is an exception to the dogma EENS it is assumed to be objectively known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational. Any one who says invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire is an exception to Feeneyite EENS infers that these cases are objective for them to be exceptions. Council of Florence:One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exceptions.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was Feeneyite. Liberal theologians:They reinterpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.They used Cushingism. So they re-interpreted Mystici Corporis, Quanta Cura, the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( invincible ignorance was considered visible by them), the Catechism of the Council of Trent etc. Vatican Council II (Cushingite):It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Cushingism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refernot to hypothetical butknown 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 tohypothetical cases, which are unknown personallyin 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.It wasCushingite. Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( Feeneyite).It means accepting the Letter as Feeneyite based on the first part,only .It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.It does not infer that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to explicit and objective cases for them to be exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. Letter of the Holy Office ( Cushingite).It is based on the second part of the Letter.It rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( Cushingite-explicit) and being saved in invincible ignorance ( Cushingite-explicit cases) as being exceptions to EENS ( Feeneyite).It wrongly assumes hypothetical casesare objectively visible and so they are exceptions to the first part of the Letter. 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.The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with this confusion.It can be interpreted with CushingismorFeeneyism.
Catechism of Pope X:It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.It can be interpreted with wrongly with Cushingismor correctly with Feeneyism. 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.This is aCushingiteinterpretation. 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.It isFeeneyite. 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.It's basis isCushingism. 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.Theoretical cases cannot be defacto exceptions to the dogma EENS in the present times. Catechism of the Catholic Church( Cushingite):CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction.It suggests that since God is not limited to the Sacraments that we know such cases in real life. So it is mentioned.At the same time CCC 1257 states that the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water. So it seems Cushingite when it suggests all need to enter the Church with the baptism of water but some do not since there are known exceptions( God is not limited to the Sacraments).
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 with Feeneyism since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known exceptions, known people who are saved outside the Church 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 needing to formally enter the Church. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation.
However CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church since Cardinal Ratzinger assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved invincible ignorance referred to known and objective cases and so they were relevant to EENS Feeneyite. This was Cushingism.It was also an error.
Council of Trent (Feeneyite interpretation):.The reference to the desire for the baptism of water by a catechumen is a reference to a theoretical and hypothetical case. Council of Trent: (Cushingite interpretation) The baptism of desire excludes the baptism of water and is a reference to a practical and personally known case saved outside the Church.This is false reasoning.
I accept all the magisterial documents of the Church and I interpret them with Feeneyism. Jose Galat could do the same. All Catholics must do the same including the Colombian bishops.
The two popes and all the cardinals accept all the magisterial documents of the Catholic Church,but unlike me, but interpret them with irrational Cushingism.