Thursday, February 8, 2018

Even Bishop Robert Barron could say like Michael Voris that all who are in Heaven are Catholic and most people on earth are going there.

There are many people who believe in :  No salvation Outside the Catholic Church
Lionel: It is a denial of EENS Feeneyite and an affirmation of EENS Cushingite.
So it is also Vatican Council II (Cushingites) and not Vatican Council II(Feeneyite).
They also go off the rails on the Nicene Creed.
___________________________


, among them are Michael Voris, 
Lionel:
He denies  EENS Feeneyite and affirms EENS Cushingite. There is no denial from CMTV on this point over the last few years.

So for Michael Voris it is Vatican Council II (Cushingites) and not Vatican Council II(Feneeyite).Nor do not deny this.

They also go off the rails on the Nicene Creed.This is a first class heresy.
____________________________

many priests , the societies of St. Pope Pius X SSPX , the Fraternity of St. Peter and even some priests of Vatican II in he Novus Ordo Mass.
Lionel:
They deny  EENS Feeneyite and affirm EENS Cushingite. 

It is Vatican Council II (Cushingites) and not Vatican Council II(Feneeyite).

It is the same on the Nicene Creed.

They even interpret the Catechisms with Cushingism.
_____________________________.



  Whom do you agree with Lionel? Anyone on earth?
Lionel: I agree with the past Magisterium of the Church before 1940 . I interpret all Magisterial documents with Feeneyism ( according to Lionel Andrades). It is in harmony for example with the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century.
Michael Voris is a rupture with Tradition..
________________________________

  Please note one of MANY insights into Mike Voris?
Lionel: He is correct in this video. But again he has avoided the three points I have mentioned above.

ON BEING SAVED

Everyone in Heaven is Catholic.

https://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/vortex-on-being-saved
__________________________________________________________

Just like Cardinal Ratzinger says all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church Michael Voris says all who are in Heaven are Catholic.They both are trying to adapt to invisible for us baptism of desire being a visible exception to EENS. So for them there are known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I in Heaven.This is Cushingism.
Even the Archbishop of Detroit could say the same and mean that most people are oriented to Heaven.
Even Bishop Robert Barron could say the same as Michael Voris and believe most people on earth are on the way to Heaven.There is no need to convert into the Church.
Bishop Robert Barron could say that all who are in Heaven are Catholic and most people on earth, including most non Catholics are going there.-Lionel Andrades










TERMS EXPLAINED

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 affirms traditional EENS like the missionaries and magisterium of the 16th century.
Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS.There are exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church for salvation.It wronly assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.So it uses the false premise to reject the traditional interpretation of EENS.
Irrational premise: It is assuming hypothetical cases are not hypothetical but instead are objective cases in the present times.
It assumes invisible and unknown people are visible and unknown in our reality.
Baptism of Desire ( premise-free): 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, the baptism of desire, is not relevant to the dogma EENS.
Baptism of Desire (with the false premise): It refers to the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved.A known person is assumed to be known.
Invincible Ignorance ( premise-free): This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is a hypothetical case it is not an exception to the dogma EENS.The false premise was not used.
Invincible Ignorance (with the false premise): 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 exception.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was premise-free.
Liberal theologians: They re-interpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.They used the false premise.

Vatican Council II (with the premise):
 It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.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 ( premise-free):It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.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 ( premise-free),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:(with the false premise)
 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 used the false premise.
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( premise-free). It means interpreting the first part of the  the Letter without the false premise.Only the first part.It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.However the second part of the Letter contradicts the first part since it uses the false premise.
Letter of the Holy Office ( with the false premise).The second part of the Letter rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( with the premise) and being saved in invincible ignorance ( with the premise) as being exceptions to EENS (premise-free). In other words they are mistaken for being visible and known cases when they really are invisible for us.It wrongly 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 premise-free.
Catechism of Pope X: It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.It can be interpreted as being premise -free. The references to invincible ignorance etc have to be interpreted without the false premise. So it does not contradict the dogma EENS( premise-free).
Nicene Creed ( with the premise): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means there are more than three known baptisms when the false premise is used in the interpretation. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc.This is an irrational but common understanding.
Nicene Creed ( premise-free): 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: : (with the premise) 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 is of course based on the false premise.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( with the false premise).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.The baptism of desire( with the premise), baptism of blood( with the premise) and being saved in invincible ignorance( with the premise) are exceptions to dogma as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( premise-free): 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.Invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not visible exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Catholic Church for salvation.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( with the premise): 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( premise-free). So this is an interpretation of the Catechism with the false premise.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( premise-free): 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 cases in the present times of God not being not limited to the Sacraments(CCC1257).
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.It is a reference to a hypothetical case and not somebody known. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation.
________________________


Massimo Faggioli like Cardinal Raymond Burke does not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (
Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (
Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
Instead they assume  hypothetical references in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 are non hypothetical and are examples of objective cases, known people saved outside the Church.So these documents become a rupture with Tradition when they really are not.
EXAMPLES OF THE HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE CATECHISM FOR THEM WHICH ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.
1. 'God is not limited to the Sacraments'(CCC 1257)
'2.all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body'(CC(CCC 846).
3. Those 'justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians'(CCC 818).
4. They are 'joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."(CCC 838).
5. 'the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims'(CCC 841).

__________________________________


EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II FOR THEM WHICH ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.
1. 'elements of sanctification and truth'in other religions(LG 8),
2..'good and holy' things in other religions(NA 2),
3..'a ray of that Truth which enlightens' all men(NA 2),
4.'imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3),
5.' people of good will in other religions'(GS 22),
6.' seeds of the Word'(AG 11),
7.'invincible ignorance'(LG 16),
8.'a good conscience'(LG 16) etc.





HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 TO THE ARCHBISHOP O
OF BOSTON WHICH FOR THEM ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.
1.Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.(We do not know who this person is in particular so it is a hypothetical case.)
2.In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.(We do not know any one in particular as such so this is a hypothetical case.)
3.Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.( If there is any such person he or she would only be known to God. So this passage is irrelevant to the dogma EENS. It cannot be an exception.Since it is a reference to an invisible person for us.)
4.However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.(This is a reference to an unknown catechumen)


 5.For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.( Again we have a theoretical and hypothetical reference. We do not know who is united to the Church only in desire and will be saved.) -Lionel Andrades
___________________________________


Church Militant TV is interpreting the Nicene Creed, Vatican Council II and EENS with Cushingism and so are a rupture with the past Magisterium of the Church.This is doctrinal chaos.

You said that :  " So again they(Michael Voris and CMTV) are saying that there is salvation outside the Church, theologically." 
 No they are saying that this is Catholic salvation within the Catholic Church.  Father Feeney was wrong on this issue. He DENIED BOB, BOD and II. Sorry But he did deny it and that is why he was excommunicated,

Lionel: I am referring to Feeneyism according to Lionel Andrades.Our understanding of what is Feeneyism is according to Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston could be different and the good priest is not here to defend himself.
CMTV does not affirm Feeneyism according to L.A.
Instead they affirm Cushingism(according to L.A) just like the rest of the liberal Archdiocese of Detroit.
So when the Archbishop or the Chancellor  asks Simon Rafe if they affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS with BOD, BOB and I.I being exceptions, he would say Yes. Like the Archdiocese he assumes BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions.
If someone said BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions Simon Rafe would consider it heresy.
On the Mic'd Up program hosted by Christine Niles she supported the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. For her the baptism of desire was a visible exception to the Council of Florence 1441 on EENS. She was in step with the archdiocese and the USCCB.This is how they interpret the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
In one program Michael Voris said that not every one needs to be a card carrying member of the Church.This is a rejection of Feeneyism and an affirmation of the philosophy and theology of Cushingism.
So it is with Cushingism that they interpret Vatican Council II and then complain that the SSPX is not doing the same.So the SSPX, for CMTV, is in doctrinal error, heresy and schism
I have repeated this many times before and there is no denial or clarification from them. They need to be part of the Church of Nice for some reason on this issue.
They are interpreting the Nicene Creed, Vatican Council II and EENS with Cushingism and so are a rupture with the past Magisterium of the Church.This is doctrinal chaos.-Lionel Andrades








____________________________________