Voice of the Family launch new Cushingite catechism course which is politically correct with the Left

 

Voice of the Family launch new, free, online Catholic catechism course

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/voice-of-the-family-launch-new-free-online-catholic-catechism-course

OCTOBER 13, 2020

John Henry Weston, Editor in Chief,Life Site News does not want to affirm Vatican Council II without the false premise. It is the same with EENS. This is a bad example for Catholic children and youth

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/10/john-henry-weston-editor-in-chieflife.html

______________________________

 OCTOBER 13, 2020

All the following speakers refuse to affirm Vatican Council II without the false premise

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/10/all-following-speakers-refuse-to-affirm.html

___________________________

 OCTOBER 12, 2020

How can the baptism of desire (BOD) be an exception to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) ? It does not exist in real life. Only God can know a BOD case. A possibility is not a real person. We cannot meet someone saved without faith and the baptism of water and instead with the BOD.This is common sense.The saints knew this. The popes over the centuries knew this.So BOD was not an exception to exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church for the popes and saints before Pope Pius XII

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/10/how-can-baptism-of-desire-bod-be.html

___________________________________

JULY 2, 2018

The Baltimore Catechism can be interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism

Note in the Baltimore Catechism the Numbers 321,322,333 are not exceptions to number 320.

This would be interpreting the Catechism with Feeneyism( according to L.A).

The  Numbers 321,322,333 are usually interpreted as being an exception and contradicting  number 320.This would be interpreting the Catechism with Cushingism ( according to L.A).

From the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen website 

LESSON 24 — BAPTISM

315. What is Baptism?

Baptism is the sacrament that gives our souls the new life of sanctifying grace by which we become children of God and heirs of heaven.

Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

316. What sins does Baptism take away?

Baptism takes away original sin; and also actual sin and all the punishment due to them, if the person baptized be guilty of any actual sins and truly sorry for them.

Get up and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on his name. (Acts 22:16)

317. What are the effects of the character imprinted on the soul by Baptism?

The effects of the character imprinted on the soul by Baptism are that we become members of the Church, subject to its laws, and capable of receiving other sacraments.

318. Who can administer Baptism?

The priest is the usual minister of Baptism, but if there is danger that someone will die without Baptism, anyone else may and should baptize.

319. How would you give Baptism?

I would give Baptism by pouring ordinary water on the forehead of the person to be baptized, saying while pouring it: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

320. Why is Baptism necessary for the salvation of all men?

Baptism is necessary for the salvation of all men because Christ has said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Now they who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41)

321. How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?

Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire.

322. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of blood?

An unbaptized person receives the baptism of blood when he suffers martyrdom for the faith of Christ.

Greater love than this no one has, that one lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)

323. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of desire?

An unbaptized person receives the baptism of desire when he loves God above all things and desires to do all that is necessary for his salvation.

If anyone love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him. (John 14:23)

324. When should children be baptized?

Children should be baptized as soon as possible after birth.

325. What sin do Catholic parents commit who put off for a long time, or entirely neglect, the Baptism of their children?

Catholic parents who put off for a long time, or entirely neglect, the Baptism of their children, commit a mortal sin.

326. What do we promise through our godparents in Baptism?

We promise through our godparents in Baptism to renounce the devil and to live according to the teachings of Christ and of His Church.

327. Why is the name of a saint given in Baptism?

The name of a saint is given in Baptism in order that the person baptized may imitate his virtues and have him for a protector.

328. What is the duty of a godparent after Baptism?

The duty of a godparent after Baptism is to see that the child is brought up a good Catholic, if this is not done by the parents.

329. Who should be chosen as godparents for Baptism?

Only Catholics who know their faith and live up to the duties of their religion should be chosen as godparents for Baptism.

http://www.cmri.org/baltimore-catechism-no2-lessons21-30.shtml#Lesson24

ULY 2, 2018

The Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen(CMRI) needs to correct the error on their websie and come out of the sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-congregation-of-mary-immaculate.html

_____________________________________

 APRIL 11, 2016

This error is all over Vatican Councl II and it should be enough for any one to reject the Council if they wanted to :its also there in Amoris Laetitia

I would prefer the Council of Trent to other catechisms and would recommend it to others. Since the Baltimore Catechism has an objective error in the Baptism Section.The Catechism of Pope Pius X also repeats that same error in the Baptism Section. It assumes a hypothetical case is objectively known and then infers that it is an exception to the traditional teaching on salvation, inter religious dialogue and ecumenism since the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been discarded.There is an exception to the dogma. There is known salvation outside the Church.

Then the same objective error was repeated in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. There was known salvation outside the Church even though objectively in 1949  no one knew of any known case of someone saved outside the Church i.e without faith and baptism.

Fr.Leonard Feeney was criticized and then excommunicated since it was believed that hypothetical cases of the baptism of the desire, were objectively known exceptions to the Council of Trent's understanding of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.

The Vatican Council Fathers also accepted that hypothetical  cases are objectively known. So they mention the baptism of desire  etc.None of them knew of any case of the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. Yet they mentioned these 'exceptions'. This error is all over Vatican Council II and it should be enough for any one to reject the Council if they wanted to.

Then Cardinal Ratzinger in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1992 repeated the error on salvation. He went further and suggested that there were circumstances, hypothetical circumstances, in which mortal sin was not mortal sin.

So when reading all these Church documents I am constantly coming across this error which was not there in the Council of Trent.

So I can affirm the 16th century interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) based on the Council of Trent,knowing that none of the hypothetical cases mentioned in all the Church documents after Trent, are an exception to EENS. They cannot be exceptions to EENS since in reality they are theoretical. They do not exist physically. They are not de facto known.

Similarly I can accept the traditional teaching on mortal sin according to the Catechism of the Council of Trent knowing that all the hypothetical scenarios, in later catechisms,  are just that- hypothetical. So they do not contradict the 16th century interpretation of mortal sin and moral theology.

So Amoris Laetitia for me does not contradict the 16th century, understanding of mortal sin since for me there are no hypothetical exceptions to the old moral teaching on sin.However for the cardinals hypothetical cases are exceptions to the old moral law. So Amoris Laetitia has to be a confusing and heretical document.

So as a Catholic I affirm the traditional moral and salvation theology of the Church in accord with the Council of Trent and without rejecting Vatican Council II and the other Catechisms, since I do not confuse what is invisible as being visible, hypothetical as being objective.

If there is a hypothetical case and the pope considers it a concrete case of knowing someone who is living in concubinage and will not be going to Heaven, this is his perspective.This is something only God can judge. I know that he cannot say that any person, due to a circumstance, or a situation, will not go to Hell and is not living in mortal sin.He cannot know.Presently this is his irrational reasoning. So for him a hypothetical case is objectively known and so is an exception to the traditional moral law.

The two popes confuse what is subjective as being objective.Then they infer that these so called objective cases are exceptions to the traditional teaching on morals and faith.This factual error is the basis of the new liberal moral and faith theology, the new theology, the new ecclesiology.

We have to be aware of this error when reading Vatican Council II and the catechisms which followed the Council of Trent.It is based on this error, this 'development' in the Catechism(1992) that so many wrong inferences were made in Amoris Laetitiae to support adultery and condone mortal sin and sacrilege.-Lionel Andrades

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2016

Pope Francis' joint ecumenical commemoration of the Reformation is possible theologically for Catholics since the Baltimore Catechism infers there is known salvation outside the Church, a person can be saved without the baptism of water

 

Pope Francis will go to Lund, Sweden for  a joint ecumenical commemoration of the start of the Reformation, together with leaders of the Lutheran World Federation and representatives of other Christian Churches.This is possible theologically for Catholics  since the Baltimore Catechism infers there is known salvation outside the Church, a person can be saved without the baptism of water.

This was the new theology used in the Balamand Declaration.It was also the theology of the International Theological Commission under Pope Benedict and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J.One of the ITC papers they approved, proposes a 'theology of religions'. At the same time,in a kind of a double-speak,  Cardinal Ratzinger also issued a CDF Notification on Fr.Jacques Dupuis S.J against the theology of religions. Perhaps Pope John Paul II asked him to do so.

Now Pope Francis permits  a new department at the Gregorian Pontifical University called 'The Department of the Theology of Religions' which is under the Rector and another Jesuit priest.This is a contradiction with the Magisterium of Pope John  Paul II. One magisterium against under another. Surely at one of these two times the magisterium was wrong.

All this was possible because of the breach made by the Baltimore Catechism.It inferred that there is a baptism of desire which is similar to the baptism of water( as if they would know)  and that every one does not need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation, because of these 'known exceptions'.
It is a fact of life that we do not know any of these exceptions. We cannot physically see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

So there is a theology, a new ecumenism, based on this factual error in the Baltimore Catechism.-Lionel Andrades

 

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/01/25/pope_to_travel_to_sweden_for_joint_reformation_commemoration/1203462

_____________________________

The Baltimore Catechism error is not just a theoretical oversight it had practical consequences, penalites were placed on Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center. There was an excommunication.

Now that we have detected the error and have found the Missing Link, we have to change our way of looking at Vatican Council II. There is a different perspective now but it really is the old one .This is the 'mind-shift' we have to make.

 

Without the Baltimore Catechism error, the Jesuits and the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Cushing were in heresy and not Fr. Leonard Feeney.Now all the Catholic Encyclopedias irrationally assume Fr.Leonard Feeney was in heresy.

  

Some Catholics may say the Magisterium cannot make a mistake and even if the Baltimore Catechism (1891) made a minor mistake it does not change the Faith.

I tell them that it may seem a minor mistake but there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II.So the faith is not the same.This is a major shift in theology.The result is the difference between heresy and faith.
There is now a rational and irrational intepretation of Vatican Council II. These are two different faiths.
With the Baltimore Catechism error the present Magisterium is a break with the pre- Council of Trent Magisterium.So again the faith is different.

The Baltimore Catechism error is not only theoretical it had other practical consequences.There were penalites placed on Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center. There was an excommunication.
Without the Baltimore Catechism error, the Jesuits and the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Cushing were in heresy and not Fr. Leonard Feeney.Now all the Catholic Encyclopedias irrationally assume the heresy was with Fr.Leonard Feeney.
The magisterium in Boston and Rome were using the irrational premise and inference which comes from the Baltimore Catechism.IThe error was then inserted in Vatican Council II. Hypothetical references to salvation in Vatican Council II are interpreted as being objectively seen and personally known. It was a mistake mentioning the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance in the text of Vatican Council II. Those who inserted these references in Vatican Council II were assuming these cases, now in Heaven are invisible for all of u. They were supposed to be objective and personally known on earth.But where is the baptism of desire case on earth ? Who can name any one saved without the baptism of water in the present times ? Where does he or she live?

Who could have seen such a case in the past? Who had the physical ability to do so at Baltimore? So how could they say that the 'the desire for the baptism of water by an unknown catechuman, had to exclude the baptism of water?

How could they go back in time and interpret the saints and popes as saying 'the desire', was 1) a baptism like the baptism of water ? How could they physically verify this? Then how could they infer that these invisible cases were exceptions to the dogma EENS. The citations of the popes and saints on 'the desire' do not say that it is baptism like the baptism of water or that it is an explicit exception to EENS. It was only after the Baltimore Catechism and Boston Archdioces wrong inference, that the saints and popes were interpreted with the irrational premise and inference on the baptism of desire.
We cannot any more say that the Magisterium cannot make a mistake.Human beings can be influenced by Satan.The Freemasons could have placed the error in the Baltimore Catechism thinking a hundred years ahead.
The pope is infallible ex cathedra and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is an infallible teaching.Yet  with the Baltmore Catechism and the 1949 Letter to the Archbishop of Boston the dogma EENS was changed and then discarded.A new theology was created based on the Baltimore-Boston  irrationality.It was approved by Rome. It was a magisterial heresy.
Now it is being said that Vatican Council II has brought in a revolution into the Church, yes, only when the Council is interpreted with an irrational premise and inference.Then there  is  a  non traditional conclusion.The breech with Tradition was made at Baltimore.
Otherwise Vatican Council II is Feeneyite and there are no visible cases of salvation in Heaven without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. To say there are such cases is the false premise  and then to assume these 'ghosts' cannot be exceptions to the dogma EENS is the  false inference.
Since there cannot be known salvation outside the Church there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the old ecclesiology, which is based on 'the rigorist interpretation' of the dogma EENS.
Now that we have detected the error and have  found the Missing Link, we have to change our way of looking at Vatican Council II. There is a different perspective now but it really is the old one .This is the 'mind-shift' we have to make.

-Lionel Andrades

FROM THE BALTIMORE CATECHISM.

BAPTISM.

Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?

A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.

Q. 651. What is Baptism of blood?

A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.

Q. 652. What is the baptism of blood most commonly called?

A. The baptism of blood is most commonly called martyrdom, and those who receive it are called martyrs. It is the death one patiently suffers from the enemies of our religion, rather than give up Catholic faith or virtue. We must not seek martyrdom, though we must endure it when it comes.

Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water. (How did they know? Who saw or met someone saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church?
They assume these are objective cases. They mix up what is invisible as being visible, hypothetical as being objectively seen)

Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?

A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.

(Yes, theoretically, hypothetically, as a possibility known only to God.So why is it mentioned here with reference to all needing the baptism of water with no exceptions?

It is mentioned here since it is inferred that the baptism of desire refers to a known case.)

http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson14.htm

Download the truth on the Baltimore Catechism error

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/download-truth-on-baltimore-catechism.html

________________

SUNDAY, JANUARY 31, 2016

Download the truth on the Baltimore Catechism error

Church Militant TV (CMTV) program Download-Tradition Under Fire 1 was interesting and entertaining but superficial.CMTV keeps avoiding the real issue as to why there is  break with Tradition in the Church.Participants presented a positive picture when they all agreed that Pope Benedict XVI has ushered in a quiet revolution back to Tradition with the personal Ordinariate for the Anglicans and then  the 2007 Summorum Pontificum.CMTV  has once again not mentioned that Pope Benedict gave us the traditional liturgy without the old ecclesiology.He gave us the old Mass with a new theology.

The CMTV  panel  says now  the TLM  has canonical  approval and does not depend on the liberal  bishops, for permission.False. The liberal bishops still will not permit the old Mass with the old ecclesiology.CMTV itself will not be given permission to affirm the old ecclesiology. The Archbishop of Detroit and the Jewish Left would object.Pope Francis would call it 'ideological'.The pope would also consider  the Novus  Ordo Mass ideological if the old ecclesiology was affirmed.

Vatican Council II has to be interpreted with the irrational premise ( non Catholics are physically visible and known in Heaven) and inference ( they are objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the old ecclesiology). This premise and inference from the Baltimore Catechism was not discussed. It is as if the panel did not know of this Baltimore Catechism error and the link to the new ecclesiology and a non traditional interpretation of Vatican Council II.An important point with reference to Tradition, or even the New Ordo Mass, which would change the direction of the subject was left out.

CMTV affirms the new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.Like the Baltimore catechism, they assume that the baptism of desire is 1) a known and physically visible baptism like the baptism of water. 2) The effects of the baptism of desire is that of the baptism of water.It is as if they knew or could know of a particular case now in Heaven saved as such.
The 'desire for the baptism of water ', which is theoretical for all of us and 'the catechuman who dies before receiving it', is a hypothetical case.Yet CMTV treats it as if it is objective.
 It is objective like the baptism of water, for them.So the CMTV panel's theology says these cases are exceptions to the old ecclesiology. This is the new theology accepted by Michael Voris.It is magisterial  according to Pope Benedict  XVI. It's also non traditional and heretical for a discerning Catholic.

This was the theology  of the recent Vatican Document on dialogue with the Jews which was not commented upon by CMTV or even the SSPX.

The new theology, attached to the Traditional Latin Mass, comes from the false premise and inference.The error was there in the Baltimore Catechism and it has influenced CMTV's interpretation of Vatican Council II.The removal of the old ecclesiology, at the centre of Tradition, was effected with the Baltimore Catechism and then the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.The Americans did it!

Could the Americans at CMTV now expose the error and bring the Church back to Tradition?
There are so many ways CMTV could approach this issue.

See the conversation  between Ross Douthat 2 and Fr. James Martin S.J.The irrational premise and inference from the Baltimore Catechism was used to interpret Vatican Council II.

Notice how the SSPX rejects the new theology and does not know that it is based on the Baltimore error. They can only interpret Vatican Council II with the Baltimore reasoning. The sedevacantists do the same.

See how Wikipedia assumes Lumen Gentium 16 is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.In other words, LG 16 refers to an objective case, like an  'objective' baptism of desire.In this way it becomes an exception.

All the Catholic encyclopedias have accepted  the theology of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.It assumes that the baptism of desire is objective like the baptism of water and so contradicts the Feeneyite, traditional interpretation of EENS.Is this rational?

The USCCB Doctrinal Committee under Cardinal Donald Wuerl, told Fr. Peter C.Phan  that all need to believe in Jesus for salvation and that the Church was necessary except for those saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance (the church was not necessary for this categoy. They knew of a few people who did not have to become formal members of the Catholic Church.) It is as if the USCCB knew of someone in the USA who is in Heaven without the baptism of water and so membership in the Church, after all,  was not necessary for some .Of course the USCCB liberals were in line with the Baltimore Catechism.

Michael Voris, once asked the liberal Fr.Jonathan Morris on a Vortex progam, who among us today does not need to enter the Church for salvation. The CMTV panel could ask this question with reference to the Baltimore Catechism.How could they at Baltimore, know of someone who did not need to enter the Church with 'faith and baptism' ? How could they know of someone saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water ? They could not !

Ask this question with reference to the Baltimore Catechism, the Boston Case, the Ross Douthat and Fr.James Martin S.J conversation, SSPX and Vatican Council II, USCCB and Fr.Peter C.Phan, Wikipedia and the Catholic Encyclopedias, Catechism/Religion classes  at Michigan's Catholic schools...

I am sure the CMTV staff understand what I have said here.Will they be ready to bring this issue out in the open or will it be too controversial for them.

 The Download discussion remains, superficial, and even hypocritical if this issue is being intentionally not discussed. It is promoting a lie. 3 It is avoiding the real issue with reference to Catholic Tradition, which would make telephone and cell phones ring and buzz all over the world,if it was taken up.

-Lionel Andrades

1

‘THE DOWNLOAD—TRADITION UNDER FIRE’

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/the-downloadtradition-under-fire.html

http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/the-other-latin-rite-liturgies

2.

Vatican Council II is 'hate' without an irrationality used in the interpretation : Fr. James Martin S.J will not affirm this Council http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/vatican-council-ii-is-hate-without.html

Possibly Prof. Massimo Faggioli thinks Fr.S.Visintin, Dean of Theology at St.Anselm, Rome is a 'criminal' and does not know theology, like Ross Douthat
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/possibly-prof-massimo-faggioli-thinks.html

The text of Vatican Council II as it stands today does not contradict the dogma EENS.Dignitatis Humane does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Council can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism.The conclusion is different http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/the-text-of-vatican-council-ii-as-it.html

3.

Petition needed calling attention to public lie http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/third-order-members-of-franciscans-of.html#links

JUNE 4, 2014

Fischer More College and the Franciscans of the Immaculate have to accept these lies to be allowed the Traditional Latin Mass

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/fischer-more-college-and-franciscans-of.html

Pope Francis, Cardinal Muller and Cardinal Ladaria are refusing to interpret Vatican Council II without the irrationality

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/pope-francis-cardinal-muller-and.html

Fr.Marco Hausmann FSSP in Rome says there are no exceptions while the Vicariate is teaching young lay Catholics that there are exceptions

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/frmarco-hausmann-fssp-in-rome-says.html

When will Fr. Sabino Ardito SDB make an announcement on the Franciscans of the Immaculate doctrinal issue ?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/when-will-fr-sabino-ardito-sdb-make.html

The FSSP priests are not teaching the truths of the Catholic Faith for political reasons. They are teaching a lie.So what do we do ? We do not discuss it since they are priests?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/the-fssp-priests-are-not-teaching-truth.html

_________________________

FRIDAY, JANUARY 29, 2016

Since the Baltimore Catechism said 'the desire'(Council of Trent) was a baptism like the baptism of water Vatican Council II is interpreted as a break with the dogma EENS

It was because the Baltimore Catechism said 'the desire'(Council of Trent)  was a baptism like the baptism of water that Vatican Council II  is interpreted as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
We know that the baptism of desire(BOD) is not visible like the baptism of water.
It cannot be given like the baptism of water.
It is not repeatable like the baptism of water.
It does not exist in our reality.
It cannot be an exception to all needing to be formal members of the Church for salvation.It is not an exception to EENS.
Yet liberal theologians today still consider BOD  as being:-
1.visible and physically known like the baptism of water.
2.It can be physically given like the baptism of water.
3.It is repeatable.
4.It exists in our reality.
5.It is an exception to the St.Robert Bellarmine interpretation of EENS.

The theologians go further and re-interpret all references to 'the desire',which have been made  by the popes and saints.They re-interpret them with the above five points.Then the theologians infer that the popes and saints considered BOD an explicit  baptism like the baptism of water.Then they conclude that the saints and popes have said that BOD is an exception to the dogma EENS.

This was the wrong inference, the irrational understanding of the magisterium when Vatican Council II was called.Imagine the confusion for the Council fathers.

They allowed BOD to be mentioned in Vatican Council II as an exception to the Council's  passages which supported the dogma EENS ( AG 7, LG 14).

There are passages which mention hypothetical cases of salvation as if they are relevant to EENS (UR 3, NA 2, LG 16, LG 8 ).
Now Vatican Council II is interpreted as a break with Tradition because of the irrational premise(visible cases of BOD without the baptism of water) and inference (these visible cases are explicit exceptions to EENS) , which originated in the Baltimore Catechism.The Baltimore innovation, the new doctrine, was made official in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston and then the innovation was placed in Vatican Council II.

So the problem is very real at Vatican Council II.There can be two interpretations of the Council.One is rational and the other irrational.One is Feeneyite and the other is Cushingite.

However, in Vatican Council II, in spite of the superfluous passages,which suggest hypothethical references to salvation are exceptions to EENS, we can avoid the error.We can choose our interpretation.

Just be aware, that hypothethical, theoretical cases,  are just that - hypothetical and theoretical.They are not concrete and objective, like seeing someone being given the baptism of water.

So there is no confusion over all needing the baptism of water for salvation.The dogmatic teaching has not been changed if you are using Feeneyism.

There is no change to the traditional ecclesiology on Jews, Muslims and Christians in Vatican Council II.

The magisterium though, made an objective mistake in the Baltimore Catechism, the Boston Case and then Vatican Council II.The flotsam and jetsam, the dead wood passages in Vatican Council II, the mix up between what is invisible and visible,is also there in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257,846).The Catechism did not mention the error.It did not correct it. Though the Catechism (1992) too can be interpreted using the Feeneyite reasoning.

So we affirm that all Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and Christians( non Catholics), need to formally enter the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell, since this is the official teaching in the text of Vatican Council II.

Outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation, there is no salvation.

-Lionel Andrades

(The insight for the above report was there during Holy Mass in Italian yesterday evening in a church at Primavalle, Rome on the feast day of St. Thomas Aquinas.He is the Italian saint who mentioned the man in the forest , in invincible ignorance, to whom God would send a preacher, if he was to be saved. He did not say that this man in invincible ignorance referred to a personally known case. Though this is  inference is made by theologians who support the Baltimore  Catechism error.)

_____________________________

SUNDAY, JANUARY 24, 2016

You cannot say that the magisterium at Baltimore made a mistake in the Baltimore Catechism, even though you know that no one in Baltimore could have seen or known a baptism of desire case in real life.

Anyone and everyone that we might meet would be taught the rigorist formula of EENS. There are no exceptions to what we can teach and Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance are completely irrelevant to teaching and living totally in the EENS mode.

Lionel:

But you still say there is a baptism  of desire without the baptism of water. So you contradict yourself.

You cannot say that the magisterium at Baltimore made a mistake in the Baltimore Catechism, even though you know that no one in Baltimore could have seen or known a baptism of desire case in real life.

You also do not know any saint who has said that BOD cases were visible or personally known to them, persons  who were saved with BOD and without the baptism of water.

Then when I say that I accept BOD only with the baptism of water you are not willing to accept this.

______________________________

What happened in the Church at the time of the letter of 1949 is for a separate discussion that can bear no fruit until we get this issue of known/unknown behind us along with explicit/implicit.

Lionel:

The issue of known/unknown, explicit/ implicit baptism of desire is at the centre of your interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and Vatican Council II and you still do not want to discuss it.

_____________________________

 The known/unknown is easy or at least it should be for we can not possibly know that all souls in heaven have physically been baptized with water for that is totally in God's domain.  The explicit/implicit for me is also simple.

Lionel:

Yes it is simple. I agree we cannot know if there is a soul in Heaven, baptised or not baptised with water.So the magisterium has made a mistake when it inferred that the baptism of desire and blood, and being saved in invicible ignorance( of the Gospel through no fault of their own) refers to known cases without the baptism of water.

They did not know any such case and yet they taught that there were people in Heaven without the baptism of water.

________________________________

 It is you that continually bash by name many of the Popes, Saints, catechisims as being wrong.

Lionel:

The saints, popes and catechisms before the Baltimore Catechism were not wrong.It is liberal theologians who interpret them using the  irrational premise ( baptism of desire cases are personally visible on earth) and irrational inference ( these 'known' cases are exceptions to the old ecclesiology), who were wrong.These theologians interpretation , accepted by the contemporary magisteriu, are  a rupture with the old intepretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. You also make the same error.

_________________________________

  I continually mention the Saints, Popes and councils of centuries past because if you were consistent in your positions you would have to go after them also for the contemporary Church professed the same thing.

Lionel:

The contemporary Church is a break with St. Robert Bellarmine, St.Francis Xavier, St. Francis of Assisi and numerous others, who affirmed the strict intepretation  of the dogma EENS. So I criticize the contemporary magisterium for their irrational reasoning  which produces heresy.This heresy is politically acceptable to the Left, who represent Satan in many of their political aims and policies.In conscience I cannot support this.

_________________________________

 What you are correct about is that the catechesis of what the church still believes is NOT taught correctly by the greatest majority of clerics and lay Catholics.

Lionel:

They say the baptism of desire excludes the baptism of water as if they could know. You make the same error.

You tell me that you accept EENS in its strict sense but then also say there is a baptism of desire without the baptism of water, which you accept.You do not see the contradiction.

_______________________________

 Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood were taught throughout the centuries and by those very names.

Lionel:

Yes and they are accepted. However you have no right to interpret the saints( St.Charles Borromeo etc) by using an irrational premise and inference, like the liberal theologians at Boston during the time of Fr.Leonard Feeney. This is also the approach of the FSSP priests in your diocese.

_______________________________

  The Church has clearly defined the conditions for BOB and BOD.

Lionel:

The Church has always considered them as hypothetical cases.

The liberal theologians consider then de facto, known cases, objectively visible.

The magisterium of the past considered them as theoretical cases, known to God.

The contemporary magisterium considers them objective cases, known to us humans.

The contempory magisterium has placed BOD in Vatican Council II when it is a theoretical case.It then interprets them as objective cases, known to us humans. So Vatican Council II emerges as a rupture with the dogma EENS, the old ecclesiology and the old understanding of ecumenism and salvation of  non Catholics.

When will you discuss these 'conditions' ?

__________________________________

  There have been countless souls throughout the centuries that were catechumens who died BEFORE receiving the waters of Baptism.

Lionel:

Countless ? Do you know of any one of them? 

_________________________________

  There have been countless souls who converted to Catholicism through BOB before receiving physical water of Baptism.

Lionel:

Can you name one of them? Then explain how could it be known that they were exceptions to the dogmatic teaching which says all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation?

___________________________________

 Many of these Saints were named by the Church and so we DO KNOW that as far as the Church was concerned they entered Heaven without the physical waters while on Earth and are explicit examples.

Lionel:

How could 'the Church' ( contemporary magisterium) know or see or physically name St.Emerentiana as being in Heaven without the  baptism of water? Does 'the Church' also say that a  particular person, had this '20-20' vision to see St.Emerentiana or St.Victor etc, in Heaven without the baptism of water? So, this gifted person in the Church, made this official announcement in 'the Church'?

______________________________________

 The Church, you and I can not know if they were baptized with water miraculously by God after their death.

Lionel :

Since we cannot know how can you say that 'the Church' and you know of countless persons saved with BOD and without the baptism of water?

-Lionel Andrades

______________________________________________

THE DEVELOPMENT OF HERESY
(from the Baltimore Catechism to Vatican Council II)

ERROR N.1

BALTIMORE CATECHISM
B.
321. How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?

Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire.
322. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of blood?

An unbaptized person receives the baptism of blood when he suffers martyrdom for the faith of Christ.
Greater love than this no one has, that one lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)323. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of desire?An unbaptized person receives the baptism of desire when he loves God above all things and desires to do all that is necessary for his salvation. - Baptism. Lesson 24 from the Baltimore Cathechism

A.
315. What is Baptism?

Baptism is the sacrament that gives our souls the new life of sanctifying grace by which we become children of God and heirs of heaven.

Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

316. What sins does Baptism take away?

Baptism takes away original sin; and also actual sin and all the punishment due to them, if the person baptized be guilty of any actual sins and truly sorry for them.
Get up and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on his name. (Acts 22:16)

317. What are the effects of the character imprinted on the soul by Baptism?

The effects of the character imprinted on the soul by Baptism are that we become members of the Church, subject to its laws, and capable of receiving other sacraments.

320. Why is Baptism necessary for the salvation of all men?

Baptism is necessary for the salvation of all men because Christ has said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Now they who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41) - Baptism.Lesson 24 from the Baltimore Cathechism

ERROR N.2

CATECHISM OF POPE PIUS X

A.

27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?

A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.

B

29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?

A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation. -Catechism of Pope Pius X, Rome 1905

ERROR N.3

LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949

A

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).

Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.

B

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.

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.

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.

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.

With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire...

From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct...

ERROR N.4
VATICAN COUNCIL II

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. -Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II

A

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.- Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II

B

Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him.- Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II

Cardinal Kaspar changed ecclesiology assuming B is an exception to A : he used an irrational model to interpret Vatican Council II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/cardinal-walter-kasper-said-in.html

Cardinal Muller has changed doctrine, supports the development of heresy

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/cardinal-muller-has-changed-doctrine.html

__________________________________________________