Friday, October 11, 2019
For Ann Barnhardt being saved in inviincible ignorance outside the Church(LG 16, CCC 847-848) exists technically only on paper : but not for the present two popes
Since outside the Church there is no known salvation there never ever were any exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), in the past. It was a mistake for the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) and Vatican Council II to consider the baptism of desire (BOD), baptism of blood (BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) as exceptions to all needing faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7). Similarly it was a mistake for the popes, cardinals and bishops to consider LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being exceptions to the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return. Outside the Church there are no personally known cases of non Catholics saved, for us human beings. So we cannot know of any exception to an ecumenism of return or the past exclusivist ecclesiology now associated with the Traditional Latin Mass only.
This does not come across in the media's reporting of the Amazon Synod.There is something wrong in general with the media's reporting. No one is pointing out that the cardinals and bishops interpret the Council with Cushingism and not an exclusivist ecclesiology.
Even the four points of COETUS on the Working Paper of the Synod were based only on Christology.
Christology is vague without ecclesiocentrism even the liberals could use it to support the Working Paper.
Even the four points of COETUS on the Working Paper of the Synod were based only on Christology.
Christology is vague without ecclesiocentrism even the liberals could use it to support the Working Paper.
Vatican Council II really supports exclusive salvation and an ecclesiocentric ecclesiology and this is reported only on the blog Eucharist and Mission(Lionel's blog).
For me Lionel, BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 etc are only hypothetical cases.This is common sense.
Ann Barnhardt has written that being saved in invincible ignorance exists technically only on paper. I agree.
Similarly LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc exists techinically only on paper and so does CCC 847-848(invincible ignorance).But for Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the present two popes, LG 8 etc do not exist technically only on paper. They are actual people, non Catholics, saved outside the Church in the present times.Otherwise how could they be put forward as exceptions to the traditional teaching on the Catholic Church having an exclusiveness and superiority in salvation.
So Pope Francis and Cardinal Ladaria must be asked to clarify this doctrinal issue.The German bishops interpret LG 8 etc as not being technically there only on paper.I they are told to interpret LG 8 as being only existing technically on paper will they go into schism?
Vatican Council II is only Christological for the two papers and it does not suppport an ecclesio centric ecclesiology since LG 8 etc and BOD, BOB and I.I do not technically exist only on paper fpr them.-Lionel Andrades
Fr.Benedict Hughes CMRI and Bishop Mark Pivarunas do not deny that they assume unknown cases of BOD, BOB and I.I as being known exceptions to Feneeyite EENS. They also do not deny that they assume hypothetical and theoretical cases referenced in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, Gs 22 etc as being literal and practical exceptions to EENS. So Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition for them and they have chosen sedevacantism.
From Justification and Salvation: What did Fr. Leonard Feeney teach? April 24, 2019 by Fr. Benedict Hughes, CMRI, Sedevacantist.
The case of Leonard Feeney is a truly tragic one in Church history, but it exemplifies how heresies and false teachings often arise as an excessive or false reaction to another heresy or error they are trying to combat. There is no question that the Church’s dogma of No Salvation Outside the Church (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, or EENS; see Denz. 430) was more and more being effectively undermined and attacked in the 1940s and ’50s, not simply by people outside the Church but also by many within.
Lionel: Denz 430 interprets the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with Cushingism, i.e a false premise and inference is used to create a rupture with the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.
Unknown cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are assumed to be personally known examples of salvation outside the Church.So it is implied that there are practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.This is irrational, non traditional and innovative.The conclusion is heretical. The liberals placed the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in the Denz.430 with this factual and objective error. This is human error and not a treaching of the Holy Spirit.
On the website of the Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae (CMRI), the baptism of desire is interpreted with Cushingism.Then it is projected as an exception to traditional EENS. The popes and saints over the centuries are re-interpreted with the same irrationality.
___________________________________
In his 1950 landmark encyclical against the renascent Modernism of his day, Pope Pius XII warned: “Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation” (Encyclical Humani Generis, n. 27). It was this trend that Feeney sought to remedy, but he did so by distorting the Church’s teaching in the opposite direction. In 1947, he began preaching bizarre ideas about justification, salvation, and the necessity of the Church and thus got himself in trouble with the authorities of his order (Jesuits) as well as the diocese in which he was functioning (Archdiocese of Boston).
Lionel : For the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Jesuit Superior in the USA and the Rector of Boston College, unknown cases of BOD, BOB and I.I had to be said to be personally known and objective examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church. This is irrational but it was accepted at Vatican Council II and the popes from Paul VI to Francis.This was the only way exceptions could be created to exclusive salvation in the Church.
They continue to interpret Vatican Council II as being only Christological even though the Council supports an ecclesiocentric ecclesiology, when it is interpreted rationally i.e unknown cases are simply unknown.
________________________________
Another Catholic priest who was conscious of the dire need to counteract the dangerous subversion of EENS but who did so using sound Catholic theology was Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, professor of fundamental dogmatic theology at the Catholic University of America and editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review (1943-63). A former student of the legendary Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., Fenton was an expert in the field of ecclesiology. Pope Pius XII recognized Fenton’s theological achievements and bestowed upon him the medal Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice in 1954. In 1958, Fenton published the magnificent work The Catholic Church and Salvation in the Light of Recent Pronouncements by the Holy See. An assortment of his numerous articles on the Church was recently published as The Church of Christ: A Collection of Essays by Monsignor Joseph C. Fenton.
Lionel: Again we have a Cushingite who interpreted Lumen Gentium as being an exception to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. He maintained the tradition of error which was repeated by Cardinal Luiz Ladaria on March 1,2016.
It is based upon Cushingite theology that the Working Paper of the Amazon Synod rejects exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
______________________________
Alas, despite correction from the Holy Office (Decree Suprema Haec Sacra of Aug. 8, 1949), Feeney persisted in his errors, and in 1953 he was excommunicated by Pope Pius XII ferendae sententiae for grave disobedience, as he obstinately refused to obey the order to appear at the Vatican to explain his doctrine, even under pain of excommunication. (The false pope Paul VI eventually rescinded the excommunication, at least putatively.)
Lionel: For Fr. Leonard Feeney unknown cases of the BOD, BOB and I.I could not be objective exceptions to the dogma EENS. This is common sense. Even a school boy would agree here. We cannot see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water and Catholic faith. We cannot meet any such person here on earth.So where are the exceptions to traditional EENS in 2019 ?
______________________________
But just what strange doctrines did Fr. Feeney teach?
To answer this question, we present an article written by Fr. Benedict Hughes, CMRI, which was published in The Reign of Mary two years ago. In it, Fr. Benedict presents direct quotations from Feeney’s own 1952 book The Bread of Life and critiques it in light of genuine Catholic doctrine: “My purpose will be to present the teachings of Father Feeney and allow the reader to see how these contradict Church teaching”, the author states.
Lionel: Fr.Benedict Hughes CMRI and Bishop Mark Pivarunas do not deny that they assume unknown cases of BOD, BOB and I.I as being known exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
They also do not deny that they assume hypothetical and theoretical cases referenced in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, Gs 22 etc as being literal and practical exceptions to EENS. So Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition for them and they have chosen sedevacantism.
____________________________________
Other resources to help provide clarity with regard to EENS include the new book Contra Crawford, Bp. Donald Sanborn’s Anti-Feeneyite Catechism, our TRADCAST 004, and the web site baptismofdesire.com. A simple slogan by which to remember the orthodox Catholic attitude in the EENS debate would be: “Fenton, not Feeney.”
Lionel: I have written on this issue many times before and there has been no response from Novus Ordo Watch or CMRI.Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada and the other names mentioned here , like Bishop Pivarunas, and cardinals and bishops in general in the Catholic Church, assume unknown cases of BOD, BOB and I.I are known exceptions to Feneeyite EENS.The red is an exception to the blue for them when really is not an exception to the blue.1
They also assume hypothetical and theoretical cases referenced in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, Gs 22 etc as being literal and practical exceptions to EENS.
So Vatican Council II is only Christological for them and does not support an ecclesiocentric ecclesiology, as it does for me.-Lionel Andrades
https://novusordowatch.org/2019/04/father-leonard-feeney-justification-salvation/
1
1
- Red being an exception to the blue -Vatican Documents (1)
- Red Column (4)
- Red is an exception to the blue-Bologna School/ Fr.John Zuhlsdorf (1)
- Red is not an exception to the blue - Proclamation (2)
- Red is not an exception to the blue - profances Holy Mass (1)
- Red is not an exception to the blue :CCC 846-848 (4)
- Red not an exception to blue mapping (1)
Repost : Michael Matt says Archbishop Lefebvre trained priests in Catholic doctrine - this is false.
AUGUST 30, 2019
Michael Matt says Archbishop Lefebvre trained priests in Catholic doctrine - this is false.
Michael Matt says Archbishop Lefebvre trained priests in Catholic doctrine - this is false.
Lefebvre interpreted Vatican Council II with a false premise.
Lefebvre interpreted extra ecclesiam nulla salus with a false premise.
Lefebvre interpreted the Catechism of Pope Pius X with a false premise.
Lefebvre interpreted the Nicene Creed with a false premise.
Lefebvre discarded the Athanasius Creed with a false premise
Etc, etc.
This is not Catholic doctrine.
This is schism with the past popes on de fide teaching of the Church.
This is not traditionalism. It is a rupture with Tradition.
-Lionel Andradeshttps://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/08/michael-matt-says-archbishop-lefebvre.html
AUGUST 29, 2019
Yves Congar and the progressive group at Vatican Council II did not know that the Council was being interpreted with a false premise. Without this premise the Council would still have the old ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and the traditional exclusive salvation theology
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/08/yves-congar-and-progressive-group-at.html
AUGUST 29, 2019
Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich organised a meeting on Vatican Council II in Rome. The participants interpreted Vatican Council II with a false premise. So there was a rupture with the old ecumenism of return and EENS
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/08/cardinal-reinhold-marx-of-munich.html
AUGUST 29, 2019
Bradley Eli at Church Militant TV uses a list of false premises. He uses it to create a rupture with Tradition.So there is a schism with the past popes and the past Magisterium.Since with a false premise 'objective' exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus are created. Even the past exclusivist ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return, the Syllabus of Errors, the Athanasius Creed etc. are contradicted. This is schism. It is officially approved schism
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/08/bradley-eli-at-church-militant-tv-uses.html
AUGUST 27, 2019
SSPX wrongly interprets the Second Vatican Council with irrational Cushingism instead of Feeneyism : SPX FAQ Videos
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/08/what-is-second-vatican-council-episode.html
AUGUST 27, 2019
Pope Paul VI and the popes upto Francis have interpreted Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism. Pope Paul VI had a choice.He chose the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition : New York Times on Vatican Council II
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/08/pope-paul-vi-and-popes-upto-francis.html
AUGUST 27, 2019
Wikipedia interprets Vatican Council II with Cushingism and contributes to the confusion
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/08/wikipedia-interprets-vatican-council-ii.html
AUGUST 27, 2019
WITH VATICAN COUNCIL II (CUSHINGITE) THERE IS A 'NEW REVELATION' IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.THIS LIBERAL READING CAUSES THE HERMENEUTIC OF RUPTURE WITH THE PAST. IT IS OBSOLETE SINCE IT IS BASED UPON AN IRRATIONALITY. A RATIONAL FEENEYITE VERSION IS AVAILABLE
HTTPS://EUCHARISTANDMISSION.BLOGSPOT.COM/2019/08/WITH-VATICAN-COUNCIL-II-CUSHINGISM.HTML
AUGUST 27, 2019
People usually say that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) when they really should be saying that they are not exceptions. People have been conditioned to see LG 8 etc as exceptions
SEPTEMBER 1, 2019
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/09/participants-at-roundtable-discussion.html
DEAN OF THEOLOGY AT ST. ANSELM SAYS THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
__________________________________________________
JUNE 20, 2016
Prof.Phillip Blosser, a Professor of Philosophy at Musings of a Pertinacious Papist and Tancred at The Eponymous Flower agree with me : hypothetical cases (baptism of desire etc) cannot be explicit for us in 2016
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/profphillip-blosser-professor-of.html
MONDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2016
I even interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1995) as being Feeneyite. I use the same reasoning : hypothetical cases are not explicit in the present times. http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/10/i-even-interpret-catechism-of-catholic.html
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/archbishop-thomas-egullickson-says.html#links
DEAN OF THEOLOGY AT ST. ANSELM SAYS THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/10/dean-of-theology-at-st-anselm-says.html#links
CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS IS DE FIDE AND NOT CONTRADICTED BY VATICAN COUNCIL II- Fr. Nevus Marcello O.P
BRAZILIAN PRIEST SAYS VATICAN COUNCIL II DOES NOT CONTRADICT DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/brazilian-priest-says-vatican-council.html#links
I follow the Catechism of Trent in agreement with Vatican Council II and the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.
JUNE 20, 2011
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/there-is-no-baptism-of-desire-that-we.html
WE DO NOT KNOW ANYONE SAVED WITH THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE OR INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE SO EVERYONE NEEDS TO ENTER THE CHURCH AS DON BOSCO TAUGHT- Salesian Rector and Parish priest in Rome
JULY 25, 2018
Repost : When I meet Catholics I say Vatican Council II says outside the Church there is no salvation and all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/07/repost-when-i-meet-catholics-i-say.html
Do not read these books : their new theology is the same as that of the Amazon Synod
OCTOBER 8, 2019
The theology of these books is the same as that of the cardinals and bishops at the Amazon Synod
-Lionel Andrades
OCTOBER 8, 2019
Amazon Synod is based upon Vatican Council (Cushingite)
OCTOBER 8, 2019
Don't read these books - the theology is skewered
For the writers of these books LG 8, LG 14 and LG 16 being hypothetical cases do not contradict the old ecclesiology. There is no known salvation outside the Church. So there is no theological and philosophical foundation for the New Theology.
There is nothing in Lumen Gentium to contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. So there is no philosophical and theological foundation in Vatican Council II for the New Ecclesiology.
Unitatis Redintigratio does not name any particular person saved outside the Church as a Protestant or other Christian in his religion.It does not state that we can know of a Christian saved outside the Church without Catholic faith. So the Decree on Ecumenism(UR) does not anywhere contradict the past ecumenism of return.
Similarly Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation and we know there can be no practical exceptions known to us humans in 2019. So Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Mission and Salvation as it was known to the Magisterium and missionaries in the 16th century.
Ludwig Ottt assumes unknown cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood (BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) were known exceptions to the traditional interpetation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The same mistake was made by Fr. Francois Laisney.Other writers made this mistake and also interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally. The same error is being made today by the Cardinals and bishops at the Amazon Synod.
-Lionel Andrades
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
