Diocese of Madison must let school children know that they can interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church with Feeneyism or Cushingism
____________________________________
MONDAY, JULY 3, 2017
Hi,
I hope you are not mixing me up with the St.Benedict Centers, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I am not using their apologetics.
The communities in the diocese of Worcester and Manchester USA would be making the same error as the FSSP with Vatican Council II.
The FSSP assumes the baptism of desire (BOD) and blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) refer to known cases saved without the baptism of waterand so they are examples of salvation outside the Church.
The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney, also assume (LG 16( invincible ignorance) and the theoretical case of the catechumen who has the desire for the baptism of water but dies before he receives it (LG 14, AG 7 etc) are exceptions to the dogma EENS.So for them Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition.So their inference too, like the FSSP, is that LG 16 etc refer to visible cases in 2017. This is a false inference which produces a false conclusion.
On the Nicene Creed though the St. Benedict Centers are clear that there is only one baptism and it is the baptism of water. They affirm Feeneyite EENS.
However for the FSSP, the SSPX and the F.I (Franciscans of the Immaculate) there are three known baptisms( desire, blood and invincble ignorance).So there are exceptions to Feeneyite EENS with BOD, BOB and I.I for them. There are exceptions to the Nicene Creed when it states ' I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins'.
Ask them: Do you believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. They will say Yes.
Ask them : Are you referring to the baptism of water? They will say Yes.
Ask them : However you also believe there is salvation outside the Church without the baptism of water and with BOD, BOB and I.I? They will say.
Ask them: Is this not contradictory for you? They will say no, with a straight face.
Tell them: That I, Lionel, believe there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins..There is only one known baptism, the baptism of water.
There are no known baptisms of BOD, BOB and I.I. This is physically not possibile. So there cannot be an exception to the dogma EENS or the NIcene Creed on baptism, for me.
For me, Lionel, there are no exceptions and for the FSSP and the SSPX and the F.I there are exceptions.For methere are no exceptions to 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' for the FSSP and the present magisterium of the Church there are.
So the magisterium like the FSSP have a different understanding, compared to me, of the Nicene Creed, EENS(with or without exceptions), Vatican Council ( with or without the irrational premise), the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( with or without the irrational premise) and the other Catechisms which mention invincible ignorance( with or without the premise).
The bottom line is that we are all reciting the Nicene Creed but there are two different interpretations.
One interpretation says there are no practical exceptions and the other says there are.
One is traditional and rational and the other is heretical and not rational.
So can the bishop make the Traditional Latin Mass available with FSSP priests, who like me, are traditional and rational when interpreting the Nicene Creed, Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents?
Can the bishop be shown the difference in the two interpretations, mine and all of theirs, and be asked to comment ?
How can lay people who attend the Traditional Latin Mass accept the irrational and non traditional version of the Nicene Creed when they have an option in my interpretation?
This is the stuff for a Canon Lawyer to take up with the bishop in Denver.
Would you know of a Canonist there in Denver with whom I can communicate?
-Lionel Andrades
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2016
-Lionel Andrades-Lionel Andrades
SEPTEMBER 10, 2016
If the magisterium avoids the error Vatican Council II , Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and Catechism of the Catholic Church can be interpreted with rational and traditional Feeneyism :it's a return to the old ecclesiology
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/if-magisterium-avoids-error-vatican.html
In the hierarchy of values of Pope John Paul II, we are dealing with first class heresy http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/on-hierarchy-of-values-of-pope-john.html
"Thanks for providing this! God bless the Society!", " I agree with much of what Lionel says" http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/thanks-for-providing-this-god-bless.html
The Nicene Creed was changed with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mistake : it was approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/the-nicene-creed-was-changed-with.html
MONDAY, APRIL 4, 2016
Comments from the blog Musings of a Pertinacious Papist : Benedict's Compendium, the CCC, and YouCat compared
P.P:
On a hierarchy of values, where would you place your concern. Is this the HEART of the Gospel, the Catholic Faith or not? How much hangs on it, would you say?
Lionel:
On the hierarchy of values of Pope John Paul II, we are dealing with first class heresy.
Since in reality the Nicene Creed has been changed.Before the Council of Trent the Nicene Creed did not mean 'I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins and they exclude the baptism of water. They are the baptism of desire ( without the baptism of water), being saved in invincible ignorance ( without the baptism of water etc'.
We are theologically rejecting John 3:5 and Mark 16:15 by suggesting not everyone in the present times needs to be a formal member of the Church with faith and the baptism of water.
Theologically we are rejecting the Great Commission by suggesting that there is known salvation outside the Church.
This issue is central to the divide in the Catholic Church over Vatican Council II.It is at the centre of the SSPX-Vatican reconcliation.
It will be wrongly used by Cardinal Walter Kasper to suggest that doctrine and dogma has changed in the Catholic Church ( with the use of an irrational inference which he will not mention) and so the Church can change its other teachings e.g giving the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried.
Ths issue is at the centre of mission and evangelisation based on the knowledge of the majority of people going to Hell because of Original Sin and mortal sins committed in that state.
This issue decides if the Traditional Latin Mass( and the Novus Ordo Mass) is offered with the old ecclesiology or the new ecclesiology.The present new theology of the TLM is based upon an irrationality.
This issue decides if Vatican Council II is not an exception to the dogma EENS and so there is no change presently in post Vatican Council II ecumenism and inter religious dialogue based upon the text of Vatican Council II which can be interpreted with Feeneyism, instead of the present Cushingism.
-Lionel Andrades
______________________
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 2015
Mark Shea assumes that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma as interpreted by the Church Councils, saints, Vatican Council II (AG 7) and Fr.Leonard Feeney.
My view ( and not some concept of Feeneyism ) is being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire is not related to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, it is not an exception to the traditional strict interpretation of the dogma. It is not even relevant.
The Good Thief on the Cross, who died allegedly without the baptism of water, cannot be an exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma. Since he existed centuries back. Exceptions must exist in the present times. Something or someone can only be an exception today.
Every exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation has to happen today.Otherwise it will not be an exception today.
Something that happened in the past cannot be an exception to the dogma on March 18.Something that will happen in the future cannot be an exception to the dogma on outside the church there is no salvation. Something that happens in Heaven and is known only to God, cannot be an exception on earth to the dogma today;someone in Heaven cannot be an exception o earth, to all needing to convert formally into the Church on March 18, 2015.
So if someone dies in invincible ignorance ( with or without the baptism of water) it would be known only to God. So how could it be an exception or relevant to the strict interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation ?The message of the dogma is related to today.All need 'faith and baptism' for salvation today.All need to convert today into the Church to avoid the fires of Hell.Even if someone were to die without faith and baptism ( which is not de fide) we would not know of any exception today.Humanly we cannot know. These persons would be dead and in Heaven.For Mark Shea being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.
If a pope, cardinal or magisterial document infers that there are exceptions today it is false.It has to be rejected.This is common sense.The dead -past, present or future- cannot be exceptions to all needing to convert into the Church today.
Cardinals Marchetti and Cushing in 1949 did not know of any exceptions.
At Vatican Council II ( 1960-1965) no one there knew of anyone saved without faith and baptism.
When Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus were issued neither did Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger know of any exceptions to the dogma.There is no known case of salvation outside the Church i.e without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.
So how can the Catechism of Pope John Paul II, Dominus Iesus, Redemptoris Missio and other magisterial documents, over seen by Cardinal Ratzinger, imply that there is salvation outside the Church? Yet they do.The magisterium has made a factual error and Mark Shea repeats it. He assumes there are explicit exceptions to the dogma. So he cannot say that Vatican Council II II affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma with Ad Gentes 7 and there cannot possibly be exceptions in Vatican Council II to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus
For Mark Shea,as it was for cardinals Marchetti and Cushing in 1949, persons in Heaven are living exceptions on earth to all need to be formal members of the Church (with faith and baptism) to avoid Hell.It is a fact of life that we cannot see these people on earth.Mark Shea also also contradicts Church documents before 1949 which do not mention the baptism of desire and being being saved in invincible ignorance, as referring to cases known to us in the present times i.e defacto or explicitly visible. Neither does Mystici Corporis or the Council of Trent allege that these cases are known and visible to us and so are exceptions to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So if we do not know of any such case how can it be an exception to the dogma for Mark Shea ? This was the objective mistake of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Mark Shea then uses this same irrationality (false premise-the dead-saved are visible) with a false conclusion (they are exceptions to all needing to convert) to allege that Lumen Gentium 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance ) is an explicit exception to Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation) and Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He is also rejecting the Nicene Creed by inferring 'I do not believe in one (known) baptism, the baptism of water but three or more known baptisms ( blood, desire, seeds of the Word, invincible ignorance, good conscience etc). This is irrational and heretical. The baptism of desire and blood are known only to God. We do not know any one who will be saved with the 'seeds of the Word'(AG 11) etc.
He rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, changes the Nicene Creed and presents us with an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Mark Shea cannot say that any particular person in 2015 has been saved as such or will be saved as such in future without Catholic Faith.
Since these cases are unknown possibilities, even if there are many of them(100's) they are irrelevant to the dogma.The dogma tells us all need to be formal members of the Church in 2015 for salvation.'Zero cases of something are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus' says the apologist John Martignoni. The Church also teaches that all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation.The Council of Florence indicates Protestants and Orthodox Christians are on the way to the fires of Hell unless they convert into the Church. Ad Gentes 7 has the same message.Mark Shea does not want to discuss this.
I am not using the apologetics of the St.Benedict Centers, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
-Lionel Andrades
______________________
FRIDAY, JANUARY 30, 2015
In the Nicene Creed we pray 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin' and this refers to the baptism of water, the ordinary means of salvation.
The baptism of desire and blood are not known baptisms. They are not defacto, objectively seen. They cannot be administered . The baptism of water instead is visible and repeatable.
So there are not three known baptisms but only one.If the person is saved with the baptism of desire and blood it would include the baptism of water. If a person is saved without the baptism of water, as many allege because of the confusion in the letter of Cardinal Marchetti Selvaggiani (1949), it would not be known to us. There are no objective cases.There is no known case of someone saved without the baptism of water in 2015.
When Fr.Fidenzio Volpi OFM Cap., Commissioner of the Franciscans of the Immaculate offers Mass in Italian for him there is not one known baptism but three known baptisms. For him the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance ( without the baptism of water) are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They would have to be known, to be exceptions.
It is because there are exceptions to the dogma for him I say that there is not one known baptism but three known baptisms for him.
For the Commissioner of the Franciscans of the Immaculate Vatican Council II contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He does not mean all need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation.Far from it! There are exceptions! There are visible exceptions to the Nicene Creed.The credal teaching is contradicted. There are visible exceptions to Jesus saying in the Bible (John 3:5) that all need the baptism of water for salvation.Not all!?
There are exceptions to the dogma for him? Then it means there are explict exceptions.If it was not explicit it would not be an exception.This of course is not how the Nicene Creed was understood by St.Maximillian Kolbe.This is not the Atranasius Creed of earlier times, which said outside the Church there is no salvation.There are no exceptions, visible or invisible mentioned in those Creeds. Now we have the theology of exceptions. This is a new Nicene Creed.It is the one approved by the new Franciscans of the Immaculate and of course the Vatican Curia. It was also approved by Pope Benedict XVI.Offer the Traditional Latin Mass but hold on to the exceptions to the dogma.It is obvious heresy from the magisteriuim . Fr.Volpi is not the only one repeating it.It is also the heresy of the Marchetti letter.
Even the'Lefebvrists' unknowingly support it. So we have the traditional understanding of the Nicene Creed.There is one known baptism for the forgiveness of sin.Then we have the new version of three or more known baptisms for the forgivenes of sin.
Fr.Volpi wants the Franciscans of the Immaculate to accept the new one, which is heretical and irrational. Probably they are already doing so.
Where are the visible exceptions in Rome or the Vatican, to I believe in one known baptism for the forgiveness of sin?
For me there are no known exceptions to the Nicene Creed or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Vatican Council II does not mention any.
-Lionel Andrades
__________________________
The Diocesce of Manchester considers a Profession of Faith made with the Athansius Creed invalid.They also refer to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, defined by three Church Councils as ' a principle'.
This is a scandal.
The Athanasius Creed is not accepted for a Profession of Faith by a diocese and they admit it in public.
Also a Profession of Faith with the Nicene Creed must be different from the Nicene Creed as it was interpreted in the 16th century.
In the 16th century the Nicene Creed meant ' I believe in one baptism for the forgivenss of sins' It was one known baptism, the baptism of water.
Today the Nicene Creed means, 'I beleive in three known baptisms, they are desire, blood and invincible ignorance and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church'.
Similarly a Profession of Faith with the Apostles Creed would be different from that of the 16th century.
In the 16th century it meant ' I believe in the Holy Spirit , the Holy Catholic Church' which teaches outside the Church there is no salvation and all people need to be members of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.
Today it means, 'I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church' which teaches that outside the Church there is known salvation and so all people do not need to be members of the Church for salvation.
-Lionel Andrades
https://www.catholicnh.org/assets/Documents/About/FAQ/Decree-Precepts-StBenedictCtr.pdf
CDF, Diocese of Manchester deception is not Catholic : nor ethical or honest even by secular standards
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/01/cdfdiocese-of-manchester-deception-is.html
_______________________________________
- Comment from the Remnant Newspaper
BENEDICT BREAKS HIS SILENCE... WITH ANOTHER LEAKY LIFEBOAT
Infallible Athanasian Creed: "
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary
that he hold the catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled,
without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in
Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also
believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe
faithfully he cannot be saved."
So was the infallible creed in error?
Either the infallible CREED, the Athanasian Creed,
- ratified by 2 Councils, either made an error or it didn't.
- If it made an error, then the Catholic Church is not
- THE Church of Christ.
Lionel:
There was no error in the Athanasian Creed. The error was there in the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology which assumes there is known salvation outside the Church. This is the innovation. It is interpreting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with Cushingism ( there are known exceptions to EENS) and rejecting traditional Feeneyism as a theology( there are no known exceptions to EENS).
We simply have to use Feeneyism as a theology once again, as did the 16th century missionaries. Then the Athanasius Creed is not contradicted.
There is no change in the Nicene Creed too ( I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins ( and not three).
Vatican Council II also becomes traditional with the Feeneyite theology. Since LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc refer to invisible cases and so they do not contradict the Athanasian Creed.
-Lionel Andrades
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2374-benedict-breaks-his-silence-with-another-leaky-lifeboat
_________________________
Since 1885 the Catholic Church has subtly changed its teaching on salvation since it is inferred that being saved with implicit desire and martyrdom are 'baptisms' in other words they are like the baptism of water , which is explicit, visible and repeatable.
Implicit desire/ Baptism of desire(BOD) and martyrdom/baptism of blood(BOB) was linked indirectly to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in the Catechism of Pope Pius X , where it is suggested(by the way the text is placed) that every one needs to enter the Church except for those with the BOD or BOB. In other words these cases are explicit, seen in the flesh and so are exceptions to the dogma EENS.They would have to be explicit to be exceptions to EENS.
Then in 1949 the change was complete when the same argument was repeated.The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston criticized Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center for not accepting BOD and BOB as baptisms and exceptions to the traditional ( pre-1885) understanding of EENS.
The Church in 1949 was slowly and boldly saying there was salvation outside the church, there were known cases of people saved without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.So now the old Athanasius Creed which said outside the Church there is no salvation , no more seemed valid.The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1995) suggested there is salvation outside the Church.Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger accepted the Pius XII Error.
1885-1995 DOGMA ON EENS GRADUALLY PHASED OUT
The Catholic Church taught for centuries that all needed to convert for salvation but now something new was added. A new element was brought it.BOD and BOB were made relevant.
1.It was assumed that being saved with implicit desire or martyrdom was a known baptism.Even though no specific case was known or could be known in 1885 or 1908 when the two new catechisms were issued.
2.These cases excluded the baptism of water.This was assumed even though no empirical case could be known .
3.These cases were known to us in the present times( 1885 in Baltimore, USA, 1908 in Rome, 1995 Vatican City).How could they be known to human beings?
So the Athansius Creed could no more be recited because of the general new understanding of salvation.
The Baltimore and Pope Pius X Catechisms suggested BOD and BOB were baptisms without the baptism of water, the Letter of the Holy Office accepted this along with the new baptism, in invincible ignorance. So the Nicene Creed mentions one baptism for the forgiveness of sin and in 1949 we had three baptisms(water,desire and blood).
Vatican Council II would be interpreted as saying there are more than three baptisms. There is the baptism of the 'seeds of the Word'(AG 11), 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) etc.
DAMAGE CONTROL
Damage control efforts must recognize that the centre of the change in Church teaching on salvation is assuming BOD, BOB and I.I are explicit instead of implicit,objective instead of subjective, visible instead of invisible,defacto instead of dejure( accepted only in principle). It was assumed that these cases were personally known instead of being only hypothetical.
So we must note now that all salvation alluded to in Vatican Council II or the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is really implicit, invisible ...
There cannot be an exception to the Feeneyite version of EENS.To be an exception there would have to be cases which are explicit, objectively seen in the flesh,personally known and visible.
Since there really are no exceptions to the dogma EENS mentioned in any of the Catechisms (1885,1908,1995) we can still recite the Athanasius Creed in Church today.
SUMMARY
I started this report by saying the Athanasius Creed could not be recited in Church since in general Catholics assume there is salvation outside the Church.BOD, BOB and I.I would refer to persons saved with a baptism which excluded the baptism of water.This also seemed the understanding of Cardinal Ratzinger when he prepared the 1995 Catechism of the Catholic Church.
I conclude this report by sayng the Athanasius Creed, which says outside the Church there is no salvation, can be recited in Church today since there are no known cases in 2015 of persons saved in BOD, BOB or I.I. These cases are invisible for us human beings.So inspite of Cardinal Ratzingers accepting the Pius XII Error, the Catechism can be interpreted as affirming the rigorist interpretation of EENS. This is possible only when we are aware that all references to salvation are invisible instead of visible in 2015.
-Lionel Andrades
Athanasius Creed
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.
Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood by God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living[17] and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.(emphasis added) ___________________________
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed
He believed everyone needs to be a visible, ‘card carrying’ member of the Catholic Church as taught in the Nicene Creed. The President of Catholic Culture cannot in reality affirm the Nicene and Athanasius Creed and criticizes Fr. Leonard Feeney. He opposes his co-editor Phil Lawler.
Unlike Fr. Leonard Feeney whom he criticizes Jeff Mirus is unable to affirm the Athanasius Creed which says outside the church there is no salvation. Mirus refuses to endorse Cantate Domino, Council of Florence which was one of three ex cathedra dogmas on outside the Church there is no salvation.
He also refuses to accept Vatican Council II (LG 14,AG 7) which indicates that Catholic Faith and the baptism of water is the ordinary means of salvation. Instead he believes invincible ignorance (LG 16) is the ordinary means of salvation and so the Native Americans were also saved before the Catholic missionaries went there.(See Tragic Errors of Fr.Leonard Feeney. It is placed on the internet by Mirus’ Trinity Communications ).
Philip F. Lawler, the Director, Catholic Culture has written a book titled "The Faithful Departed: The Collapse of Boston's Catholic Culture". In this book he mentions that Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston was compromised. The archbishop rejected a dogma of the Catholic Church wrote Phillip Lawler. Lawler is co editor at Catholic Culture and his views differ from that expressed by Jeff Mirus in the online article of Fr.William Most, Tragic Errors of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
A Catholic who denies the Creed is not to receive the Eucharist.
The article placed by Jeff Mirus on the internet contains many factual errors and can be noticed when one compares it with the report by Peter Vere, Canon Lawyer.
The actual lifting of Father’s excommunication was executed by Fr. Richard Shmaruk, a priest of the Boston Archdiocese, on behalf of Bishop Bernard Flanagan of Worcester. While visiting Boston about ten years ago, I spoke with Fr. Shmaruk and he personally corroborated the events that led to him reconciling Fr. Feeney with the Church.
On pages 259 to 262 of his book They Fought the Good Fight, Brother Thomas Mary Sennott diligently chronicles the reconciliation of Fr. Feeney, as well as the subsequent reconciliation of several of Father’s spiritual descendants. Brother Sennott quotes from two respectable Catholic news sources (The Advocate and the Catholic Free Press). I have independently confirmed the quotations and context of the primary sources.
Brother Sennottt also notes that Father’s memorial mass was celebrated by Bishop Bernard Flanagan in the Cathedral of St. Paul, Worcester. This would have given rise to scandal had Father not been fully reconciled with the Church. Br. Sennott’s book received an imprimi potest from Bishop Timothy Harrington of the Diocese of Worcester, meaning the book is free from doctrinal or moral error. Thus unless one is willing to declare oneself sedevacantist or sedeprivationist, the evidence is overwhelming that Fr. Feeney died in full communion with the Church without recanting his position.- Peter Vere Canon Lawyer on the Status of those who hold Fr.Leonard Feeney’s Doctrinal Position
-Lionel Andrades
On the Feast of the Baptism of Our Lord, yesterday Sunday, there was the Renewal of Baptism Vows at Mass in some churches. It concluded with the familiar, ‘this is our faith..’.This is the liberal vague version of our faith! It is based on new versions of the Creed.
It was asked of us : ‘Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy catholic Church?’ My response: "I do."
Yet if the question was phrased:'Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and in which all people need to enter with no exception, to avoid Hell? I would answer:" I do", but would the priest also say the same if asked?
So this is not really our faith, when you get down to the specifics. It is a new approved question and answer version of the Creed taken from the Missal.
The Athanasius Creed repeats outside the Church there is no salvation.
ATHANASIUS CREED
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.
Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.
Do I affirm the Athanasius Creed? Yes ! I do!
Posts
