We can no more say that the Catholic Church is one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic, for all, since with or without the False Premise, two different churches exist. One is ecclesiocentric ( with the rational premise) and the other is non-ecclesiocentric ( with the irrational premise). Fr. Thomas Weinandy, Brother Andre Marie micm and Joe Sixpack(CMTV) wrote articles on the Four Marks of the Church without making the distinction between the ecclesiocentric and non-ecclesiocentric Church.They did not mention the rational premise, which takes the Church back to the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.

We can no more say that the Catholic Church is one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic, for all, since with or without the False Premise, two different churches exist.One is ecclesiocentric( with the rational premise) and the other is non-ecclesiocentric ( with the irrational premise).

Fr. Thomas Weinandy, Brother Andre Marie micm and Joe Sixpack(CMTV) wrote articles on the Four Marks of the Church without making the distinction between the ecclesiocentric and non-ecclesiocentric Church.They did not mention the rational premise, which takes the Church back to the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.

Was Vatican Council II in harmony with EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX  or was it a rupture with Tradition?

For the Church Fathers and the Early Christians, the Early Catholics, the Catholic Church was ecclesiocentric.Outside the Church there was no salvation.For the present two popes the Church is no more ecclesiocentric.Outside the Church there is known salvation, there is salvation, is the irrational reasoning.So there is a New Ecclesiology, New Ecumenism, New Evangelisation etc.This is a break with the Apostles.

We no more have the old Catholic Identity.Those who have the old Catholic Identity are not in unity with the rest of the Church, the majority in the Church, who interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise.They use the New Theology.

As I have mentioned in a previous blog post, the Nouvelle Theologie  of Vatican Council II was not created  by Reginald Garangou Langridge.It was created by the Council Fathers(1965) from the False Premise of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.That Letter rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and postulated  unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as being known and objective cases  and objective exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So EENS was made obsolete.The New Theology was outside the Church there is salvation and the popes went along with it.

On Church Militant TV, Joe Sixpack still presents the Four Marks fo the Church( one, holy , Catholic and Apostolic), without mentioning the New Theology oriented with the Fake Premise, a Specific Error of the Council Fathers in 1965.Before Pope Pius XII the Church was clearly ecclesiocentrism in its theology. After Pius XII the Church ceased to be ecclesiocentric.None of the popes defended Fr. Leonard Feeney or affirmed the strict interpretation of EENS or the Syllabus of Errors ( with no known exceptions) and the Athanasius Creed( with no known exceptions).

I also affirm the Four Marks of the Church but my concept of Church, my ecclesiology, is different from Joe Sixpack and Cardinal Walter Kasper.

So when Traditionis Custode did not interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise no one objected.Since their interpretation of Vatican Council II was non ecclesiocentric, like that of Pope Francis and the SSPX ( they use the false premise).

Since the popes condone the error, American foundations with the approval of the popes and the USCCB,have approved the funding of ecumenical studies at the Dominican Angelicum University, Rome only for students who are non ecclesiocentric.Only those students can study at the pontifical universities who are unethical and dishonest and use a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II.

Last Sunday politically correct with the Left homilies was delivered at Mass in Italian in Rome.There personal and political interpretation of Vatican Council II to sustain division and schism in the Church. 

Pope Francis was in schism at the National Catechectical Center, Italy( Jan 30,2021) when he said that Vatican Council II had to be accepted as he interprets Vatican Council II( with the false premise) which produces a rupture with the past Magisterium- was Magisterial.

This is schism caused with the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II. There is a break with 'the true Church', represented by the Creeds, Catechisms, dogma EENS and other Magisterial documents, interpreted rationally.

To reject the Athanasius Creed and change the understanding of the Nicene Creed is first class heresy, in the heirarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II ( Ad Tuendum Fidem). It is schism in the Church.Pope Francis in the Letter which accompanied  Traditionis Custode, interpreted Vatican Council II with a fake premise to create a false rupture with Tradition and he calls it the work of the Holy Spirit.

How can the Holy Spirit make an objective mistake and use a false premise to interpret Lumen Gentium 14( baptism of desire) and Lumen Gentium 16( invincible ignorance), for example ?

For me  LG 14 and LG 16 refer to hypothetical and theoretical  cases always.They are always speculative and not real people saved outside the Church in the present times, 1965-2021. This is something obvious.

How can LG 14, LG 16 etc be exceptions to EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors ? Yet this is how he interprets Vatican Council II to reject ecclesiocentrism.This is different from the rational way I interpret the Council and consider it Magisterial. It is not a rupture with the past Magisterium. Pope Francis cannot say the same.

I am still in the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church whose ecclesiology and theology does not change. -Lionel Andrades

Sturno, Processione di San Michele Arcangelo

Processione, benedizione Sacra Spada | Festa Patronale Monte S. Angelo S. Angelo S. Michele Arcangelo 2021

SAN MICHELE ARCANGELO santuario di Sturno (Av)

Like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Roberto dei Mattei, Joseph Shaw and John Henry Weston among others, are in schism with the past Magisterium, since also like the popes from Paul VI to Francis, they interpret Vatican Council II, the Creeds, Catechisms, extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance with a fake premise, to create a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition( Syllabus of Errors, Catechism of Pope Pius X, 24Q,27Q) etc.

 Like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Roberto dei Mattei, Joseph Shaw and John Henry Weston among others, are in schism with the past Magisterium, since also like the popes from Paul VI to Francis, they interpret Vatican Council II, the Creeds, Catechisms, extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance with a fake premise, to create a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition( Syllabus of Errors, Catechism of Pope Pius X, 24Q,27Q) etc.

Archbishop Lefebvre died in this schism, excommunicated by Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger who were also using the same false premise to create schism.They did not interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise and so avoid heresy and public schism.So he was correct to reject Vatican Council II interpreted with the irrational premise.The popes and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did not tell him that he was free to interpert the Council with the rational premise and there would no more be a rupture with Tradition.

The mainstream media say that the Society of St.Pius X are in schism for not accepting Vatican Council II ( with the false premise).They want the SSPX to accept the Council with its schismatic interpretation.This is the one they follow.

The false premise creates schism irrespective if someone is considered conservative or liberal,is a pope or is a simple lay Catholic.

The interpretation of Vatican Council II by Reuters and Associated Press, is of course schismatic.Since they use the false premise. If they switched to the rational premise the Council would be supporting Tradition.This means they would have to see LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, as being always hypothetical, theoretical and non objective on earth.It would mean ‘the red passages’ do not contradict ‘the blue ones’.

So even though the Council Fathers-Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar and Cushing, were in schism with the use of the false premise, rejecting the Athanasius Creed etc,  Vatican Council II today can be interpreted non schismatically.This can be done by simply looking at LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being only hypothetical in 2021.So there are no objective exceptions to the past ecclesiocentrism.

Now for Fr. John Weinandy , the Church is one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic and non ecclesiocentric( with the false premise). So it is a different Church from the one of the Church Fathers, the Early Christians. It is a different Church from the one in the 13th century.The Scholastics did not use the false premise to interpret EENS etc.

So the Church is not the same for him and for me, even though we may both cite the Four Marks of the Church .-Lionel Andrades

Father Weinandy: ‘If the German Synodal Way is not heading for schism, it has fooled a lot of people’

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/247596/father-weinandy-if-the-german-synodal-way-is-not-heading-for-schism-it-has-fooled-a-lot-of-people

SEPTEMBER 20, 2021

We can no more say that the Church is one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic : if you interpret Magisterial documents with the rational or irrational premise the conclusion is traditonal or non traditional

THE CHURCH IS 'ONE'

In order to identify the Church founded by Jesus Christ, we must find the marks that only He alone could and would leave as Her identifying characteristics. We call those characteristics the marks of the Church. There are four primary marks, and they're easily identifiable.

We say the Catholic Church is "One" because all Her members profess the same faith, participate in the same sacraments, and obey the Roman pontiff, the vicar of Christ (Ephesians 4:4–5).It's true that some other churches may have one of those marks, and a few may even possess two of the marks, but there is only one Church — the one founded by Our Lord — that has all four marks. Those marks that He gave His Church are One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Let's start with the mark we call "One."- Joe Sixpack — The Every Catholic Guy  •  ChurchMilitant.com  •  September 17, 2021   

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/characteristics-of-the-true-church-part-i

Lionel : This is partially true. I have mentioned it before that we can no more cite the four marks of the Church from the Nicene Creed. It depends upon how we interpret Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus. If Vatican Council II is interpreted with the rational premise then there is a rational conclusion and harmony with Tradition in the Church with the four marks. If a false premise is used then there is a rupture with EENS ( with no exceptions ) in the Church with the four marks.

Similarly if the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance is interpreted with the false premise, as does Joe Sixpack for Church Militant TV then there is an EENS with exceptions. The BOD, BOB and I.I are practical exceptions to the traditional strict interpretation of EENS.

But if BOD, BOB and I.I are seen as only hypothetical and theoretical cases in 1949-2021 then they do not contradict Feeneyite EENS. This is how I interpreted it. There are no exceptions for EENS in the Church with the four marks.

So I am in the Catholic Church with the four marks but  my understanding of Church Documents would be different from CMTV.My interpretation without the false premise,  of the Creeds, Catechisms,, EENS, Vatican Council II, Traditional Mission, Traditional Ecumenism and Ecclesiology would be different from that of Michael Voris, Christine Niles and Joe Sixpack.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO ) was not Magisterial for me in its second part, since it used the false premise to create a New Theology which was adopted by Vatican Council II and overlooked by the popes. 

The popes, cardinals, bishops and the Left today consider the LOHO 'magisterial' since it produces a break with Tradition and anyway the Lefebvrists are making the same error and consider themselves traditional.They do not correct this error in the writings and talks of the popes on Vatican Council II and neither does Church Militant TV. -Lionel Andrades

NOVEMBER 14, 2020

Archbishop Carlo Vigano is a Cushingite and I am a Feeneyite and so our Profession of Faith will be different. He interprets the Nicene Creed with a false premise.It is the same one used in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.I avoid that false premise. Similarly Fr. Thomas Weinandy is a Cushingite and I am a Feeneyite so our concept of the four marks of the Catholic Church would ne different. For him it is one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church outside of which there is known salvation and so he is not a Feeneyite on EENS. There is known and visible salvation outside the Church and so there are exceptions to traditional EENS for him. For me of course it is one holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church outside of which there is no salvation. I am a Feeneyite

 

Archbishop Carlo Vigano is a Cushingite and I am a Feeneyite and so our Profession of Faith will be different. He interprets the Nicene Creed with a false premise.It is the same one used in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.I avoid that false premise.

Similarly Fr. Thomas Weinandy is a Cushingite and I am a Feeneyite so our concept of the four marks of the Catholic Church would ne different. For him it is one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church outside of which there is known salvation and so he is not a Feeneyite on EENS.

There is known and visible salvation outside the Church and so there are exceptions to traditional EENS for him.

 For me of course it is one holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church outside of which there is no salvation. I am a Feeneyite. -Lionel Andrades

THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2021

Ryan Grant interprets the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) with the false premise like the Society of St. Pius X . He has made available a Catechism in which he has not clarified that BOD and I.I refer to hypothetical cases and so do not contradict St. Robert Bellarmine's strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

 

Ryan Grant interprets the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) with the false premise like the Society of St. Pius X . He has made available a Catechism in which he has not clarified that BOD and I.I refer to hypothetical cases and so do not contradict St. Robert Bellarmine's strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

He also needs to clarify that BOD and I.I are not objective exceptions to Feeneyite EENS otherwise his future work will  continue to be contradictory and a rupture with the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church.. - Lionel Andrades

https://mediatrixpress.com/shop/

DECEMBER 14, 2019

Fr.Thomas Weinandy's ecclesiology is flawed

As expected Fr.Thomas Weinandy wrote about the necessity of believing in Jesus, for salvation and he excluded the necessity of membership in the Church, to avoid Hell. Since for him, and also the United States Conference of Bishops( USCCB) , it is the  Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney (LOHO) which was correct.The Jesuit Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong.So he presents a Christology without the traditional ecclesio centric ecclesiology( Athanasius Creed, Catechism of Pope Pius X on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441).

For him unknown and invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) were known and practical exceptions to EENS. 

This is how it was for LOHO and Pope Pius XII.

So Fr.Weinandny can no more say like the Magisterium of the 16th century that outside the Church there is no salvation. There is salvation for him.

So he presents Jesus, without the necessity of the Church in general, for salvation. He rejects the dogma EENS, like the rest of the USCCB.He rejects the Athanasius Creed too.

For him it is salvation in Jesus without the Church, in general.There is no exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church for him is one of many Christian denominations,since there is known salvation outside the Church for him.

The following are the mistakes Fr. Weinandy support.

1.There is no need for a non Catholic to convert into the Catholic Church since he could be saved in his religion with BOD, BOB and I.I etc.LG 8 etc are exceptions to EENS for him.

This is the New Theology of Rahner and Ratzinger, based upon known exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.

2.It's also possible, for him, that most people are saved in their religion.Since in principle there is salvation outside the Church. So there is a reasonable hope for most people to be saved says Bishop Robert Barron the Head of the USCCB Evangelisation Department.For Bishop Barron and Fr. Weinandty there is known salvation outside the Church. So the past ecclesiology becomes obsolete.There is a new ecclesiology with exceptions to EENS.

3.It means that the missionaries in the 16th century were wrong on EENS. Since EENS is obsolete for Fr.Weinandy.

4.So God wills a plurality of religions, whose members do not have to convert, since LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 refer to practically known exceptions, of salvation outside the Church in the present times or the past.This is what the USCCB theologian suggests like the U.S bishops and Pope Francis and Pope Benedict.

5.Protestants, who contracep.abort and divorce, but believe in Jesus, are also going to Heaven in general since they believe in Jesus.

Even a Catholic in mortal sin believes in Jesus but at the time of death he will not be going to Heaven.

6.The Episcopalians support gay marriages and also believe in Jesus and so will be saved for the USCCB.

7.The Jehovah's witnesses also believe in Jesus. They say that Jesus is one with St. Michael the Archangel.They reject Jesus' teachings on Hell.They interpret the Bible according to their founder.They will be going to Heaven for Fr. Weinandy.

Fr.Weinandy's report in the Catholic Thing and LifeSite News 1 reminds me of the anonymous Coetus International group's comment on the Amazon Synod Working Paper. It was Christology with no traditional ecclesiology. So I know, that for them too the LOHO was correct and Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong.

The Amazon Working Paper was rejecting exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and the Coetus Anonymous group was wrong to quote Christological passages in Dominus Iesus.

Since Cardinal Hummers could simply say that the pagans in the Amazon are saved through Jesus and the Church without knowing or believing in Him. For Cardinal Hummers, and Cardinal Ratzinger, there is known salvation outside the Church. Since there is known salvation outside the Church people in other religions could be saved without knowing or believing in Jesus.Then they assume that there actually are such cases. For Bishop Barron most of the non Catholics are in the saved-category.

This New Theology is expressed in the  Catechism of the Catholic Church (846).It says all who are saved through Christ and His Church. It says ' all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body'.As if this is an exception to exclusive salvation. Yes all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church and all need to enter the Church as members, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell ( for salvation).

Coetus should have cited Ad Gentes 7 interpreted with Feeneyism ( invisible people are invisible and so are not practical exceptions to EENS).They needed to interpret Vatican Council II in general with Feeneyism.It is only then that Vatican Council II would support an ecclesiocentric ecclesiology.It would be Jesus with the necessity of faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7) and not Fr. Weinandy's vague understanding of Jesus.

When the jailer asked St. Peter what must he do to be saved. He was told he simply had to believe in Jesus. This is true. However over time the jailer and his family would have to avoid mortal sin and known the faith-teachings of the community.

But for the Coetus group and the Lefebvrists, the LOHO, with the objective error was acceptable and so there can only be a Christology without the past ecclesiology. This is the new theology of Cardinal Ratzinger/ Pope Benedict who have even corrupted Magisterial and Legislative texts.

Today the value of Legislative texts are being questioned. They are not, at least, infallible.

 Fr. Karl Rahner sh, placed the LOHO in the Denzinger. The LOHO carries an objective mistake.BOD, BOB and I.I are not practical exceptions to EENS. There are no literal cases in 2019. There were none in 1965 and neither in 1949. So LOHO has a document with a factual error.

Denzinger no more carries the same authority as in the past.

The LOHO was referenced in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are all cited today based upon the LOHO reasoning.Irrationality is the norm in the Church and Fr. Weinandy has also been affected.

This is a common mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. Vatican Council II has an error. This is not the work of the Holy Spirit.

Based upon this error Fr.Thomas Weinandy would interpret LG 8 etc as literal exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. This was the reasoning of the popes from Paul VI.

We know now LG 8 always refer to an invisible case irrespective if your view on LOHO or Fr.Leonard Feeney.

So the limitation in the article by Fr. Thomas Weinandy was expected.

He has also written an article on ecclesiology 2 and mentioned the four marks of the Church.He  does not affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS like the missionaries in the 16th century. For those Jesuit missionaries too, there were the four marks of the Church but there could not be known salvation outside the Church for them.

So Lumen Gentium 8, 14 and 16 would not contradict the ecclesiology of the Church in the Middle Ages.

 Fr. Weinandy cites passages from Lumen Gentium but does not affirm exclusive salvation in the Church. Since LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc would be practical and literal exceptions to the dogma EENS. 

He supports LOHO. 

So he uses the irrational reasoning of LOHO. 

His ecclesiology can no more compare the Church to the Ark of Noah in which all need to enter to be saved,.

He is a liberal like the present two popes.His ecclesiology is the same as that of Cardinal Walter Kasper.

Fr:Weinandy still wants to please the USCCB and the CDF and the Left. He does not want to support Feeneyite  EENS by showing Catholics the difference between Cushigism and Feeneyism, visible and invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I, EENS with or without exceptions,Vatican Council II as a rupture or continuity with EENS etc. 

It is not enough to simply refer to the four marks of the Church. Since even the liberals do the same and they interpret Magisterial documents with Cushingism; they use a false premise to create a rupture with Tradition.For them there is a new ecclesiology based upon an irrational premise and they accept the liberal conclusion. Similarly for the Lefbvrists  there is a new ecclesiology created with an irrational premise and this is their ecclesiology at the Latin Mass..-Lionel Andrades

1

The Primacy of Jesus and the Church’s Liturgical Year

Fr. Thomas G. Weinandy, OFM, Cap.

SUNDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2019

https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2019/12/08/the-primacy-of-jesus-and-the-churchs-liturgical-year/

2.

The Four Marks of the Church: The Contemporary Crisis in Ecclesiology

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/02/23/the-four-marks-of-the-church-the-contemporary-crisis-in-ecclesiology/

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2020

Archdiocese of Boston mentioning the four marks of the Church is not enough since the Church doctrines and theology can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism and the understanding of Church (ecclesiology) changes

 

WHAT IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?

The Church is marked by four signs which help to identify its true nature: one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.  An understanding of these four signs will help form a definition of the Catholic Church. 

Lionel: The Archdiocese interprets Magisterial documents with 

Cushingism while  I use Feeneyism. So mentioning the four marks  

of the Church is meaningless since our concept of Church will be 

different.They use a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II 

while I avoid it. The false premise creates their liberalism.

___________________

The Church is One.  The unity of the Church is rooted in the unity of the Holy Trinity – God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit.  The Church has a common body of beliefs and is universal in doctrine.  All united under the Pope, Catholics profess one faith, creed, and set of moral teachings. 

Lionel: This is false. Doctrine and theology is changed

 when  a false premise is used. So we do not profess one

 Creed. Our interpretations of the Nicene and Athanasius

 Creed for example are different.

__________________________

The Church is Holy. God is the ultimate source of holiness in the Church and Jesus Christ is the model of holiness for the Church.  The Church is holy since it was instituted by Christ, who gave the Church the gift of the Holy Spirit to continue his mission and ministry on earth.  Through the Church, one is called to live a life which leads to the wholeness of personal development and true relationship with God, the source of life and eternal salvation. 

The Church is Catholic.  The word “Catholic” means “universal.”  The Church, from the time Jesus commissioned the Apostles until the present age, has always been centered on spreading the message of Jesus Christ.  The Church of yesterday, today, and tomorrow will always have Christ as our foundation.  Furthermore, the Church is for all people throughout the world.   The Mass and the other sacraments are celebrated throughout the world, bringing all Catholics together in a spirit of prayer and unity.  

Lionel: False. The Church is Catholic and so different 

from other Christian churches and communities. It is

 exclusivist in its ecclesiology for me.This is not the 

conclusion of teh Archdiocese which interprets Vatican

 Council II with a false premise. 

The theology of the Mass in all Rites today is different

 from that of the 16th century.

__________________

The Church is Apostolic.  The Bishops, who are the successors to the Apostles, in union with the Pope, continue to teach, sanctify, and guide the church until Christ comes again.  The doctrine and way of life of the Church is the same today as it was in the time of the Apostles.  The good news of Jesus Christ announced by the Apostles almost 2,000 years ago continues to be announced by the Church today.  Furthermore, the Church recognizes the apostolic mission – to reach out to people of all nations and preach the Good News of the Gospel. 

Lionel: The Church for centuries taught outside the Church 

there is no salvation. This was changed by Cardinal Richard 

Cushing the Archbishop of Boston. Pope Paul VI interpreted 

Vatican Council II with the Cushing false premise.So there is 

a New Theology in the Archdiocese of Boston which is not

 the same as at the time 

of the Church Fathers or the Apostles.

The Church at the time of St. Paul was opposed by the

 Jews of that time. The Archdiocese of Boston is 

approved by the Jewish Left rabbis in Boston

.-Lionel Andrades

___________________   

https://www.bostoncatholic.org/what-catholic-church-0

Archdiocese of Boston Pastoral Center

66 Brooks Drive
Braintree, MA 02184

Phone: 617-254-0100

____________________________

Fr.Stefano Visintin osnb former Rector and Dean of Theology at the University of St.Anselm Rone.( right )

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

CATHOLIC PRIESTS IN ROME AGREE WITH FR.LEONARD FEENEY: THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OF http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/08/catholic-priests-in-rome-agree-with.html#links

How can zero cases of something be considered exceptions ?- John Martigionihttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/sspx-only-way-out-now.html#links
IRRESPECTIVE IF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE RESULTS IN JUSTIFICATION OR JUSTIFICATON AND SALVATION IT IS NOT AN EXPLICIT EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/irrespective-if-baptism-of-desie.html#links
Implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martigionihttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/implicit-intention-invincible-ignorance.html#links______________________________________________________________

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2014

My questions and answers are based on sound Catholic teaching, Traditional teaching.It is the Deposit of the Faith

Dear Lionel,

in the Creed I profess this: “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church”. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

Lionel:

Even I believe in the one,holy,Catholic and apostolic Church which teaches :-

1. God has bound salvation to the Sacrament of Baptism (CCC 1257) and so every one in 2014 needs the baptism of water for salvation and there are no exceptions.

What about you, do you also believe this?

2. I believe that in CCC 1257 when the Magisterium says 'God is not limited to the Sacraments' it implies that every one in 2014 does not need the baptism of water for salvation and so there is no more an ecumenism of return, it  is wrong.

The magisterium implies that there are known cases of persons saved or who are going to be saved in 2014 so there is no more an ecumenism of return, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been superseded.This is also wrong. This is irrational. It is non traditional. It is not part of the Deposit  of the Faith. It is heretical since it rejects a defined dogma and the Creed.

Do you also accept this ?

3. The Magisterium in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 has  made a factual error for me when it assumes salvation in Heaven is objetively seen and so is an explicit exception to the literal and traditional interpretation of extar ecclesiam nulla salus.

Do you also accept this? If not why ?

4. I believe the Magisterium was wrong when it stated that 'it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church'. Defacto, in Rome in 2014 for example we do not and cannot know any exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

What do you believe and teach on this point ?

 

The same Church that defined “extra Ecclesia nulla salus” teaches and recognizes the doctrine we can find in the Catechism of Catholic Church, as the Holy Father John Paul II stated clearly and authoritatively in the Apostolic Constitution “Fidei depositum”:

Lionel:

There is confusion in the Catechism of the Catholic Church so could you clarify your position on the four points above?

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority,is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium.I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!”

So the problem is not in the Teaching of the Church, but in your wrong lecture and interpretation (or better misinterpretation). Your questions are a series of nonsenses. My only answer is this you can read just in this message. I think is enough clear.

Lionel:

As a priest- professor of theology and philosophy you have to show me precisely where I am wrong.I have specified exactly what I believe.My questions and answers are based on sound Catholic teaching, Traditional teaching.It is the Deposit of the Faith.

Due to an oversight it was overlooked in the preparation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

In Christ

Lionel

____________________________________________________

September 2, 2014

'It is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church' in Rome, in 2014, for example?. Legion of Christ priest does not answer

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/it-is-not-always-required-that-person.html#links