Friday, November 17, 2017

Pope Benedict probably ' broke his silence' on extra ecclesiam nulla salus since he was forced to reiterate his new theology which makes Vatican Council II a rupture with extra ecclesiam nulla salus


(4:59)Mission seems to be crippled in modern times especially after Vatican Council II.Last year in a rare public interview Pope Benedict broke the silence of his enclosure and made the following remarks. he said,'If it is true that the great missionaries of the 16th century were still convinced that those who were not baptized are forever lost and it explains their missionary commitment, in the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council that conviction was finally abandoned.From this came a deep crisis.This seems to remove any motivation for a future missionary commitment.Why should one try to convince people to accept the Christian faith if they can be saved without it.'
Whatever Pope Benedict, who was a young priest, and as a young priest was present as a theological adviser, he has meant by these remarks his practical diagnosis is certainly correct.If missionary zeal seems to have evaporated in the modern Church,it is because we no longer feel a sense of urgency.The Catholic doctrine on this subject is summarized by the lapidary phrase of the Church phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus.- a traditionalist priest of the  Institute of Christ the King http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-304.html

Pope Benedict probably ' broke his silence' on extra ecclesiam nulla salus since he was forced to reiterate his new theology which makes Vatican Council II a rupture with extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known for example in the 16th century.There are too many reports on the Internet which state that Vatican Council II is not and never was a rupture with Feeneyite EENS and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. So the New Theology which Pope Benedict defended as a young theologian has a hole. It is created by assuming invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are visible exceptions to the dogma EENS. So they become examples of salvation outside the Church. 
Since Ratzinger, Rahner, Congers,Kung and the other theologians have accepted this alleged known salvation outside the Church, they ask, 'What is the purpose of mission when we know that people can be saved outside the Church?'.
But now we know that invisible for us BOD, BOB and I.I never ever were visible on earth to human beings. So there never  was any known case of salvation outside the Church. Not in 1949 in the Boston Case, not in 1965 at Vatican Council II and not in 2016 when Pope Benedict broke his silence to reinforce the error he supported and which  is approved by the Jewish Left, who oppose Catholic Mission.
Now if this priest of the Institute of Christ the King  and Brother Andre Marie MICM, Prior at the St. Benedict Center, Richmond N.H will discuss this issue, they too would have to state, that Vaticcan Council II is not a rupture with Feeneyite EENS. Since LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 , NA 2,GS 22 etc refer to hypothetical cases in 2017. They are not physically visible people saved outside the Church.
So there still is the need for mission as in pre-Vatican Council II times. Since Ad Gentes 7 states all need faith and baptism and we know that most people die without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church and so are on the way to Hell.Secondly LG 16 etc are not explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century. Thirdly when the popes and saints referred to BOD, BOB and I.I they were referring to invisible people in their reality. So they did not contradict Feeneyite EENS e.g Mystici Corporis etc does not contradict Feeneyite EENS.
This point is never covered in the articles and videos on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is also not there in the book on this subject written by Brother Peter Dimond.-Lionel Andrades






NOVEMBER 17, 2017


Brother Andre Marie MICM and priest of the Institute of Christ the King do not mention Vatican Council II being in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/11/brother-andre-marie-micm-and-priest-of.html

________________________________________________



TERMS DEFINED

Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reasoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogmaextra 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.

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.

I interpret the following terms with Feeneyism and the two popes and the cardinals do so with Cushingism (so does the SSPX).

I use Feeneyism and Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Muller, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Bishop Mark Pirvanus, Bishop Donald Sanborn and the sedevacantists Michael and Peter Dimond use Cushingism.

For me the Baptism of Desire isFeeneyite and for them it isCushingite.For me Invincible Ignoranceis Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.For me Vatican Council II is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.
For me Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.For the Dimond Brothers extra ecclesiam nulla salus is Feeneyite but they reject the baptism of desire which isCushingite for them.
For me the Nicene Creed is Feeneyiteand for them it is Cushingite.
For me the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Bostonis Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.
I avoid the New Theology, while they uses it.
For me the Catechism of the Catholic Church is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.
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.
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 or the SSPX it is relevant to the dogma EENS.
Invincible Ignorance ( Feeneyite): This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.
Invincible Ignorance (Cushingite): This refers to the explicit case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is an exception to the dogma EENS it is assumed to be objectively known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational.
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 wasFeeneyite.
Liberal theologians: They reinterpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.They useCushingism.
Vatican Council II (Cushingite): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II withCushingism.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 withFeeneyism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which areunknown 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.It was Cushingite.
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.
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 worngly assumes hypothetical cases are 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 the confusion.It can be interpreted withCushingism or Feeneyism.
Catechism of Pope X: It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.It can be interpreted withCushingism or 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 a Cushingite interpretation.
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 is Feeneyite.
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 is Cushingism.
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 salvatioon.

Council of Trent : A Feeneyite does not separate the baptism of water from the baptism of desire.The baptism of desire will be followed by the baptism of water.
Council of Trent : A Cushingite separates the baptism of water from the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire excludes the baptism of water.
________________________


So I accept all the magisterial documents of the Church and interpret them all with Feeneyism i.e invisible people are not visible in the present times, hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire etc are invisible in the present times(2017) and so are not objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite).

REINTERPRET MYSTICI CORPORIS, CATECHISMS OF TRENT AND PIUS X
It is important to re-interpret Cushingite theology of the Church from Pope Pius XII to Pope Francis.Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus are Cushingite.They should not be rejected but be re-interpreted with Feeneyite theology.
Similarly when Mystici Corporis, the Catechisms of Trent and Pius X etc refer to BOD, BOB and I.I they must be interpeted as referring to invisible people at that time and even in 2017. They must not be projected as being known people saved outside the Church. This was the mistake of the liberal theologians.
Without these errors it is easy to affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) then there can only be an ecumenism of return.The present new ecumenism is based on known salvation outside the Church.
Collegiality will not be an issue when the past ecclesiology is affirmed.Since there will be unity on traditional doctrine.When there is unity on Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) then collegiality will not be a problem for the orthodox Catholics.
Religious liberty will not be an issue just as it never was during the past ecclesiology of the Church.During the time of the papal states non Catholics were free to follow their religion by the state affirmed outside the Church there is no salvation.
With Vatican Council II (Feeneyite)affirming the old ecclesiology of the Church, with no salvation outside the Church, the priority must be, to save souls, the proclamation of the Social Kingship of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State.There will be no rupture with Tradition on inter religious dialogueand the need for non Catholics to convert.Pre and post Vatican Council II ecclesiology will be the same without the irrational premise and false conclusion.With Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) all non Catholics would need to convert formally into the Church.Mission will be based on traditional salvation theology, on an exclusivist ecclesiology, since this is the charachteristic of Vatican Council II( Feeneyite).
Vatican Council II (Cushingism) today  is the Arian-like heresy in the Church.
__________________________

Let us review the two column approach here.

Would you interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side or left hand side column? 


LEFT HAND SIDE COLUMN - RIGHT HAND SIDE COLUMN

All salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3),seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) etc are either:
implicit                        or  explicit for us.
hypothetical               or   known in reality.
invisible                      or   visible in the flesh.
dejure ( in principle)  or   defacto ( in fact ).
subjective                  or   objective
So one can choose from the left hand side or the right hand side column.
 n.


If the right hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition in general on other religions and Christian communities and churches. There areknown exceptions in 2017 to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. The dead- saved are 'visible'.
If the left hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus, nor Tradition on other religions and Christian communities and churches.
Most people interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side values.
So the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance was never ever an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, unless one is using the right hand side column.There were and are no known exceptions.

_____________________________________

DIAGRAMS 


Image result for Photos Letter of the Holy Office 1949


Image result for Photos Letter of the Holy Office 1949



















































NOVEMBER 2, 2016


To understand what I am saying you have to identify the false premise and conclusion

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/to-understand-what-i-am-saying-you-have.html