Monday, June 18, 2018

Repost : The Vatican has made a mistake and there is a cover up by liberal journalists

OCTOBER 28, 2015


The Vatican has made a mistake and there is a cover up by liberal journalists


Related imageImage result for Photo of  Tom Berman APImage result for Photos of Rachel Zoll religion writerImage result for Photo of Trisha Thomas AP
The Vatican has made a mistake and there is a cover up by liberal journalists. They themself made an objective error in the reporting of Vatican Council II. They are using a theology based on an objective error.It  is promoted by the liberal universitiesincluding the pontifical ones.
Related imageLike the Associated Press(AP) and Reuters  Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Prefect of the Congregationf for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican projects Vatican Council II as a break with the past, a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.1
The liberals journalists have all these years assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance referred to explicit cases and so they became exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) became a break with the past, it became  a break with the dogma for them.LG 16 would refer to explicit exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church.
Now we know that these cases are not explicit for us and are known only to God also they would be followed by the baptism of water, which is the dogmatic teaching. So Vatican Council II does not contradict the Feeneyite version of the dogma. 
Also the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case. This is not being reported. There are no objective exceptions to the priest from Bostons' traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

Also the Baltimore Catechism made a factual mistake when they placed the baptism of desire and baptism of blood along with the baptism of water and its necessity.The baptism of desire and blood, allegedly without the baptism of water, are not objective, visible and repeatable like the baptism of water. They do not exist in our reality. So they cannot be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water.The 1808 Catechism made a mistake and has influenced the reporting of AP and Reuters, on Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston in 1949.
So it means that the Church's teaching on the Jews has not changed, since there are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the dogma on salvation. So this contradicts the reports of Nicole Winfield and Phillip Pullela. They claim that the Church's teachings having been changed on the Jews ,with Vatican Council II.
Instead the Council says all need faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7) and Jews do not have either of the two. Also most people die without faith and baptism, indicating that most people are oriented to the fires of Hell 2 according to Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14).
The religion journalists do not want to report on this and are covering up an error made by the Vatican ( B is an exception to A) which is supported by them for political reasons.
-Lionel Andrades
1


Associated Press blacks out information on magisterial heresy : AP reports on Vatican Council II were based on a factual error 
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/associated-press-blacks-out-information.html


2

A young Korean artist taken to Hell. Drew pictures of it.


Immagine correlata
____________________
The entrance it seems to me was similar to a very long and narrow alleyway, like an oven, low and dark and confined; the floor seemed to me to consist of dirty, muddy water emitting foul stench and swarming with putrid vermin...The bodily pains were so unbearable that though I had suffered excruciating ones in this life and according to what doctors say, the worst that can be suffered on earth for all my nerves were shrunken when I was paralyzed, plus many other sufferings of many kinds that I endured and even some as I said, caused by the devil, these were all nothing in comparison with the ones I experienced there...-St.Teresa of Avila's description of Hell.
http://catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/St.%20Teresa%20of%20Avila%20combat%20with%20Satan.html

Immagine correlata
________________________________________________
These are the Tortures suffered by all thedamned together, but that is not the end of the sufferings.https://youtu.e/_La-_wEJ4Fk
There are special Tortures destined for particular souls. These are the torments of the senses. Each soul undergoes terrible and indescribable sufferings related to the manner in which it has sinned.
I would have diedThere are caverns and pits of torture where one form of agony differs from another. I would have died at the very sight of these tortures if the omnipotence of God had not supported me...-St.Faustina Kowalska's description of Hell.
___________________________________________

"Then I was pushed into one of those fiery cavities and pressed, as it were, between burning planks, and sharp nails and red-hot irons seemed to be piercing my flesh."

Here Josefa repeated the multiple tortures from which no single member of the body is excluded:

"I felt as if they were endeavoring to pull out my tongue, but could not. This torture reduced me to such agony that my very eyes seemed to be starting out of their sockets. I think this was because of the fire which burns, burns... not a finger-nail escapes terrifying torments, and all the time one cannot move even a finger to gain some relief, nor change posture, for the body seems flattened out and yet doubled in two.-Sr.Joseph Menendez's description of Hell.
_____________________________________________
There was a certain rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen; and feasted sumptuously every day. And there was a certain beggar, named Lazarus, who lay at his gate, full of sores,
Desiring to be filled with the crumbs that fell from the rich man' s table, and no one did give him; moreover the dogs came, and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham' s bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell. And lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom: And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame. And Abraham said to him: Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazareth evil things, but now he is comforted; and thou art tormented.
And besides all this, between us and you, there is fixed a great chaos: so that they who would pass from hence to you, cannot, nor from thence come hither. And he said: Then, father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father' s house, for I have five brethren, That he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments. And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance.
And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead. -Luke :19-31, The Rich Man (Dives) and Lazarus.
________________________________
Second Circle (Lust)

Gianciotto Discovers  Paolo and  Francesca
In the second circle of Hell are those overcome bylust. Dante condemns these "carnal malefactors"[ for letting their appetites sway their reason. They are the first ones to be truly punished in Hell. These souls are blown back and forth by the terrible winds of a violent storm, without rest. This symbolizes the power of lust to blow one about needlessly and aimlessly.
In this circle, Dante sees
Semiramis,Dido,Cleopatra,Helen of Troy,Achilles,Paris,Tristan, and many others who were overcome by sexual love during their life. Dante is told byFrancesca da Riminihow she and her husband's brotherPaolo Malatestacommitted adultery, but then died a violent death, in the name of Love, at the hands of her husband,Giovanni (Gianciotto). Francesca reports that their act of adultery was triggered by reading the adulterous story ofLancelotandGuinevere(an episode sculpted byAuguste RodininThe Kiss). Nevertheless, she predicts that her husband will be punished for hisfratricidein Caïna, within the ninth circle (Canto V).
Alse see Dante's experience in Hell in The Divine Comedy( Inferno).
_______________________________________
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/didnt-jesus-teach-about-hell.html


FIFTH EXERCISE


IT IS A MEDITATION ON HELL

It contains in it, after the Preparatory Prayer and two Preludes, five Points and one Colloquy:
Prayer. Let the Preparatory Prayer be the usual one.
First Prelude. The first Prelude is the composition, which is here to see with the sight of the imagination the length, breadth and depth of Hell.
Second Prelude. The second, to ask for what I want: it will be here to ask for interior sense of the pain which the damned suffer, in order that, if, through my faults, I should forget the love of the Eternal Lord, at least the fear of the pains may help me not to come into sin.
First Point. The first Point will be to see with the sight of the imagination the great fires, and the souls as in bodies of fire.
Second Point. The second, to hear with the ears wailings, howlings, cries, blasphemies against Christ our Lord and against all His Saints.
Third Point. The third, to smell with the smell smoke, sulphur, dregs and putrid things.
Fourth Point. The fourth, to taste with the taste bitter things, like tears, sadness and the worm of conscience.
Fifth Point. The fifth, to touch with the touch; that is to say, how the fires touch and burn the souls.
Colloquy. Making a Colloquy to Christ our Lord, I will bring to memory the souls that are in Hell, some because they did not believe the Coming, others because, believing, they did not act according to His Commandments; making three divisions...
- The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola, [1914]http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/seil/seil15.htm
People that died and saw hell. Video Testimonies of Hell

Atheist College Professor dies and sees hell and demons - it changed his life







By A Customer on Nov. 5 1999
Hell and How to Avoid Hell by Thomas A. Nelson 
(Amazon Books)

This book is an absolute must for everyone, regardless if you are Christian or not! You will not be able to put the book down as it captivates you with an absolutely overwhelming feeling of fear and terror. It really causes you to re-evaluate your own conscience and whether or not you are on the path to heaven. This book is especially needed for those who do not know Jesus Christ and for those that do know Him but think they are "once saved always saved." The Bible clearly states that we must accept Christ into our lives in order to be saved from the fires of Hell, but we must also "work out our salvation with nervous trembling." This book discusses these points in great detail as well as many other important biblical facts about Heaven, Hell, and salvation. It's a must buy!

 Went To Hell For Suicide

Atheist College Professor dies and sees  hell and demons - it changed his life 


___________________________________

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/the-vatican-has-made-mistake-and-there.html

SEPTEMBER 24, 2017

Two popes need to correct the objective error in salvation theology which cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit and so is not magisterial

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/09/the-two-living-popes-need-to-correct.html

Repost : 63 scholars do not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, interpret Vatican Council with an irrationality and have changed the meaning of the Nicene Creed

SEPTEMBER 28, 2017

63 scholars do not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, interpret Vatican Council with an irrationality and have changed the meaning of the Nicene Creed

from Gloria TV
https://www.gloria.tv/#4~news

They do 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.)

THEY REJECT THE DOGMA EENS (ABOVE) SINCE THEY ASSUME THAT THE FOLLOWING QUOTATIONS FROM THE CATECHISM AND VATICAN COUNCIL II ARE EXCEPTIONS. FOR ME THEY ARE NOT EXEPTIONS SINCE THEY REFER TO HYPOTHETICAL AND INVISIBLE PEOPLE IN 2017.

1
EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE CATECHISM
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).

2.

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II
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.

___________________________________

Repost : Abp.Pozzo wanted the SSPX to sign the doctrinal preamble with an irrational premise : it's unethical

OCTOBER 9, 2017

Abp.Pozzo wanted the SSPX to sign the doctrinal preamble with an irrational premise : it's unethical


The Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) must note that Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of Ecclesia Dei, Vatican wanted them to sign the doctrinal preamble while accepting LG 16, UR 3,NA 2 etc in Vatican Council II as referring to known people in 2017 saved outside the Church.He wanted them to contradict the Syllabus of Errors by assuming invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance referred to visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and were examples of salvation outside the Church.This is the interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS accepted by Cardinal Raymond Burke, Massimo Faggioli,Fr.James Martin s.j...
The two popes use a false premise (invisible people are visible), false inference( these invisible but visible people are saved outside the Church) and non traditional conclusion (outside the Church there is known salvation with these invisible-visible cases, so there is a new understanding of the Nicene Creed, EENS,Vatican Council II and the Catechisms).


ABP.POZZO MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THERE ARE NO PRACTICAL EXCEPTIONS TO EENS IN 2017
So Archbishop Pozzo must be asked to acknowledge that there are no practical exceptions to EENS in 2017.Also the references to BOB, BOB and I.I in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and LG 16, LG 8,UR 3, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are to theoretical cases, possibilities known only to God and not to personally known people.
The Council of Trent, Catechism of Pius X and Baltimore, Mystici Corporis, the popes in the ordinary and extra ordinary magisterium and Vatican Council II do not state that we have to interpret BOD, BOB and I.I etc as referring to known people saved outside the Church.Yet this was wrongly inferred to by the liberal theologians and is accepted by cardinals and bishops today at the CDF/Ecclesia Dei, Vatican.

ASK ABP.POZZO TO REINTERPRET EENS AND VATICAN COUNCIL II
The SSPX can ask Archbishop Guido Pozzo to, like me, interpret Vatican Council II as being in harmony with EENS.This would be the EENS as it was interpreted by the missionaries and magisterium of the 16th century and not EENS as having visible for us BOD, BOB and I.l as its exceptions.

ASK HIM TO AFFIRM VATICAN COUNCIL II(PREMISE-FREE) AND EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SAUS(PREMISE-FREE)
So he must affirm a Vatican Council II( premise-free) and EENS(premise-free).
He cannot expect the SSPX to sign a doctrinal preamble with an irrational interpretation of magisterial documents when a rational alternative is available.Also to know that LG 16 etc refers to unknown people in the present times, and then to continue with the confusion, is unethical, deceptive and not Catholic.-Lionel Andrades
October 8, 2017
Archbishop Guido Pozzo rejects the Syllabus of Errors with Vatican Council II and EENS interpreted with the false premise : SSPX must note the doctrinal error

Repost : Abp. Pozzo wanted Bishop Fellay to interpret the doctrinal preamble with an irrational premise : ignorance or scandal ?

OCTOBER 9, 2017

Abp. Pozzo wanted Bishop Fellay to interpret the doctrinal preamble with an irrational premise : ignorance or scandal ?






Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of Ecclesia Dei, Vatican wanted the SSPX to sign the doctrinal preamble with a false premise. This would create a non traditional and heretical conclusion.It would make Vatican Council II a rupture with Tradition; the Syllabus of Errors,EENS, past exclusivist ecclesiology  etc.There was a choice but this was not known to Bishop Fellay.

Here is how it works :
False premise (invisible people are visible, unknown people are known in the present times), 
False inference( these invisible but visible people are saved outside the Church, there are known cases of really unknown people who are saved outside the Church)
False and non traditional conclusion (outside the Church there is known salvation with these invisible-visible cases, so the Nicene Creed means 'I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins, they are desire, blood and invincible ignorance and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
The 'new' dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) says every one needs to enter the Church as a member for salvation except for known cases of those saved with the baptism of desire,blood and in invincible ignorance.
Vatican Council II is interpreted as being a rupture with the past ecclesiology of the Church since now there is known salvation outside the Church and so every one does not need enter for salvation.
Vatican Council II  is a rupture also with the dogma EENS as it was known over the centuries since LG 16 etc refer to known people saved outside the Church.It means ecumenism and salvation for non Christians has also changed.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is interpreted as a rupture with the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionareis in the 16th century, for example.Since now there is known salvation outside the Church. So when CCC 1257 says God is not limited to the Sacraments it is a reference to a known person saved outside the Church.
When CCC 846 says all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church it accomodates being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire of known people saved outside the Church.If it was an invisible and unknown person he or she would not be relevant to the dogma EENS and would not be an exception.
The Syllabus of Errors is rejected since with  known salvation outside the Church there is the new ecumenism replacing an ecumenism of return and there is known salvation in other religions.
The past ecclesiology based on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus saying all need to enter the Church as members with no exception for salvation, has been replaced with the new ecclesiology which teaches that there is salvation outside the Church and so there is the new ecumenism etc.
The Nicene Creed is understood as meaning 'I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins, they are desire, blood and invincible ignorance and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
So Bishop Fellay had to sign a doctrinal preamble accepting all this.He would have had to accept  Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise, false inference and false conclusion.

Here is the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla saluswhich Archbishop Guido Pozzo will not affirm in public since there are known exceptions to the dogma for him.He has to use the false premise.For him invisible for us baptism of desire etc are visible exceptions to this dogma, so there is a new understanding of EENS, it is EENS with known exceptions.

They do 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.)

-from the website Catholicism.org

With the false premise he changes the interpretation of Vatican Council II.He does not tell Fellay that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the irrational premise and the conclusion would be different, it would be traditional.
The following eight references in Vatican Council II, for example,  are references to hypothetical cases(LG 16 etc).However they are re-interpreted as being known people saved outside the Churchand so are assumed to be exceptions to the dogma EENS cited above. This is done by mixing up what is hypothetical as being objective, what is unknown as being known in personal cases.
So Vatican Council II emerges as a rupture with Tardition.It is a rupture with the old ecclesiology, EENS and the Syllabus of Errors. There is a new ecumenism and a new concept of other religions.
When Bishop Fellay had to sign the doctrinal preamble with the false premise the following eight references in the Council text would be considered exceptions to the dogma EENS. In other words they refer to visible and known people saved outside the Catholic Church for them to be exceptions.

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II
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.

By agreeing in principle that hypothetical cases are objectively visible in the present times Bishop Bernard Fellay would also be interpreting theCatechism of the Catholic Church(1994) as a rupture with the dogma EENS and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.There is a choice. He can re-interpret the Catechism without the premise.
Here are hypothetical and theoretical references in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which Archbishop Pozzo assumes are physically visible people in the present times.This is how he makes it relevant to EENS.So the Catechism is interpreted as a rupture with the dogma EENS cited above.It is rupture also with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
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).

VATICAN COUNCIL II AND EENS ARE PREMISE-FREE FOR ME
There are no practical exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II for me .Vatican Council II and EENS are premise-free for me.They do not contradict the Syllabus of Errors.

So I am affirming the Syllabus of Errors,Vatican Council II (premise-free) and EENS(premise-free).I am in harmony with the SSPX General Chapter Statement(2012) which affirmed EENS(premise-free).



He wanted the SSPX to sign a doctrinal preamble which would indicate that in principle the SSPX accepts Vatican Council II, EENS and other magisterial documents interpreted with the irrational premise.

Archbishop Guido Pozzo violates the Principle of Non Contradiction by supporting a Vatican Council II in which hypothetical cases are considered practical exceptions to traditional EENS.There are no practical exceptions for us humans.Invisible people in Heaven are not also visible on earth.

He also violates the Principle of Non Contradiction by supporting an EENS in which hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance( I.I ) are considered practical exceptions. We cannot see or meet someone saved with BOD, BOB and I.I.

Now it is possible for individual SSPX priests to go to the Vatican or the local bishop and tell them that they affirm Vatican Council II(without the premise).Religious from other communities and lay people can do the same.

The Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) must immediately open contacts with the Vatican for their canonical status.The SSPX could cite the reports on this blog Eucharist and Mission and ask the CDF/Ecclesia Dei if Vatican Council II( premise-free) is acceptable to them.They could ask Ecclesia Dei if it is permitted to interpret Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases just being hypothetical.Would this be approved by the Vatican and the Bishops' Conferences?
The doctrinal issue to be approved is simple.Here are the two points.
1.Can the SSPX interpret the baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I)as referring to hypothetical and theoretical cases and not practical exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS),for example, in 2017?
2.Can the SSPX interpret LG 16, LG 8, LG 14, UR 3, NA 2,GS 22, AG 7, AG 11 etc as being hypothetical cases known only to God? They are not references to known people saved outside the Church,without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.So they are not practical exceptions to EENS as it was interpreted by the magisterium of the 16th century.
So the SSPX would be affirming Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS, in which BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions.

If Ecclesia Dei agrees with these two points then Vatican Council II is no more an issue for the SSPX. It is not an impediment for reconciliation.


The SSPX must begin negotiations immediately for its canonical status and cite the doctrinal and theological explanations given on this blog, as a reference.-Lionel Andrades 

OCTOBER 9, 2017

Abp.Pozzo wanted the SSPX to sign the doctrinal preamble with an irrational premise : it's unethical
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/abppozzo-wanted-sspx-to-sign-doctrinal_9.html


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 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.(it 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.( and we do not know any in particular.So this is a theoretical and hypothetical reference) -Lionel Andrades
___________________________________