CDF is heretical and irrational and the evidence is there on line

Michael Voris went to the St.Benedict Center, New Hampshire, USA and the message was LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc  in Vatican Council II are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).He also would tell Fr. Jonathan Morrris l.c,a few years back, that there are no exceptions to EENS.But the Secretaries of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishops Morandi and Di Noia, in their correspondence with Brother Andre Marie MICM, consider the Catechism of the Catholic Church(n.847-848 on invincible ignorance) contradicting 16th century EENS.There are exceptions for them.

So Michael Voris and the St. Benedict Center would be in heresy for the CDF. Since the CDF, like the liberal theologians, since Pope Pius XII, consider BOD, BOB and I.I 1 as being exceptions to EENS.This is Tradition for the CDF and the present two popes.

Tradition, for the CDF,  is accepting that BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS.This is the norm. Tradition for the CDF is not accepting that BOD, BOB and I.I is in harmony with the strict interpretation of EENS and not in contradiction.

Before Pope Pius XII the Church knew that hypothetical cases are just hypothetical.There was no confusion on the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I).

So assuming Michael Voris is considered a heretic by the new CDF Dicastery what would he say ?

He could say that the Vatican is not allowing him to affirm his religion; his Catholic beliefs.Since the CDF irrationally interprets Vatican Council II and EENS and expects him to do the same. They want a non traditional,innovative interpretation and conclusion.

Voris does not repeat the irrationality the CDF.It is the same with the SBC.

Invisible cases in 2019, referenced in LG 9, LG 16, UR 3, CCC 847-848 cannot be exceptions to the strict and traditional interpretation of EENS.This is false reasoning.It  is not Catholic. Michael Voris is not obliged to follow it.Bishop Peter Libasci, the bishop of Manchester, USA,needs to affirm Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents in harmony with centuries-old interpretation of EENS- to be Catholic.

The CDF and Bishop Libasci cannot imply that the past popes and saints are not Catholic any more.

Bishop Libasci must not be allowed to reject the Church Fathers, the medieval popes and the Church Councils on EENS, to create a new version of EENs - and then call himself a Catholic.This would be deceptive.

Similarly on moral issues, John Henry Weston, the Editor in Chief at LifeSitesNews, has produced videos on Pope Francis teaching heresy.A supporter of heresy is a heretic.

If Weston is not considered a Catholic by the CDF, he will have to show how the present ecclesiastics at the Vatican, have changed the teaching on morals- but also on faith and salvation.

Also on faith and salvation. Since the evidence for heresy on faith and salvation is there on the Internet.The proof is there in the Letter of the Holy Office(1949).The evidence is also there in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission and Vatican Council II itself.A false premise and inference was used to change traditional understanding on EENS and the proof is there in the text of Vatican Council II.It is there in black and white.The evidence is there on line.-Lionel Andrades

1

BOD(Baptism of Desire).

BOB(Baptism of Blood),

I.I ( Invincible ignorance)

All the popes, Creeds and catechisms before Pope Pius XII support Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston when the small 't' is not mistaken for being the big 'T'

From the forum Sucipe Domine

bigbadtrad

• Korporal
• 
• 
• Posts: 411
• Thanked: 565 times
• Religion: Catholic

Re: Church Militant promoting Fr. Feeney

« Reply #122 on: May 08, 2019, 10:40:21 AM »

Kreuz your arguments are not facts or proof. A fact is show me 1 theologian, 1 bishop or Pope, or 1 catechism during or after Trent who agrees with you(who supports Fr. Leonard Feeney). The rest is BLAH BLAH non-sense.

You can't. Your arguments are not a substitute. I just need 1, can't be that hard.

Lionel:

All the popes before Pius XII support Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

All the Catechisms support him.

The Athanasius Creed support him.

The Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed.

It depends upon how you interpret them.

If small 't' refers to the time from St. Pius XII to today and big 'T' the time before since Pope Pius XII, we have our answer.

All the popes, creeds and catechisms before Pope Pius XII support Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston when the small 't' is not mistaken for being the big 'T'.

-Lionel Andrades 

June 8, 2019

Catholics wrongly interpret Vatican Council II with the small 't' and assume it is the big 'T' 

 https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/06/catholics-wrongly-interpret-vatican.html

 

June 8, 2019

Catholics today follow the small 't' and believe that it has been the big 'T' in the Church for centuries.They assume that the the saints who refer to BOD, BOB and I.I refer to exceptions to EENS.In other words, personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church. Visible and not invisible people. But this was the thinking in the Church only since Pius XII. It is the small 't'

 https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/06/catholics-today-follow-small-t-and.html

 

June 9, 2019

 

Some examples of what has been taken for 'known cases' since Pius XII, when the small ' t ' is confused as the big ' T ' https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/06/some-examples-of-what-has-been-taken.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

Declaration of Truths signatories support the New Theology and New Ecclesiology which is based upon an irrationality and its conclusion is non traditional and heretical

 

A Declaration of Truths has been issued by cardinals and bishops on Pentecost Monday which does not state that outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation; there are no practical exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the past exclusive ecclesiology and an ecumenisn of return. So all non Catholics and non Christians are oriented to Hell in general unless they enter the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism'.( Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441, Vatican Council II (AG 7), Catechism of Pope Pius X etc). This needs to be affirmed.

 The ambiguity still exists in the Declaration. Since, for the signatories unknown cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are personally known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So a rupture emerges with EENS as it was known, for example, to the Magisterium in the 16th century.

The ambiguity also exists since the signatories have not stated that invisible and hypothetical cases referenced in Vatican Council II (LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc) are not physically visible non Catholics, saved outside the Church in 1965-2019.So Vatican Council II would not contradict the traditional, Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.On the contrary they are using the false premise like the ecclesiastics at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), Vatican.

For the signatories unknown cases of BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2 etc are objective and practical examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church. So they are exceptions to the traditional understanding of there being no salvation outside the Church.

This is a rejection of the dogma EENS and  a rejection of the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation.This creates a new understanding of the Nicene and Apostles Creed.There emerges  an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, which makes the Council a rupture with the Creeds and Catechisms.

This is first class heresy.

It is also the common irrational interpretation of magisterial documents with the familiar false premise and inference which creates a new non traditional conclusion.

The Declaration has accommodated the New Theology, in faith and salvation. So with there being alleged known cases of non- Catholics being saved outside the Church for the signatories, they were restricted to a Christology which excludes an ecclesiocentric ecclesiology.It is Jesus without the necessity of formal membership in the Catholic Church for salvation.

The signatories are supporting the New Ecclesiology based upon hypothetical and theoretical cases, for us human beings, being personally visible people saved outside the Church in the present times.This is a violation of the Principle of Non Contradiction. We cannot see someone on earth who is also in Heaven, saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.The person would have to be in two places at the same time.How can any one of us say that a St. Emerentiana or St. Victor is in Heaven without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church?
Upon the common irrationality a new theology and ecclesiology is supported by the signatories and this would be welcome to the present two popes and the liberals.-Lionel Andrades

 https://www.lifesitenews.com/images/local/Declaration_Truths_Errors.pdf
 https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cdl-burke-bp-schneider-issue-declaration-of-truths-to-correct-rampant-doctrinal-confusion-in-church