Monday, April 3, 2023

CDF needs to correct the mistake in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case : EWTN reports on the Boston Heresy of Pope Pius XII and the Archbishop of Boston are irrational, heretical and schismatic

 

JANUARY 21, 2015

Brian Patrick & Jerry Usher Return to EWTN Radio in 2015 : they contradict Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson and John Martignoni



EWTN Global Catholic Network, in its 34th year, is available in over 238 million television households in more than 140 countries and territories according to a press release.
What is not said by EWTN's media office is that EWTN affirms the Marchetti Letter (1949) in which it is assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, refer to known cases in the present times and these known persons are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma by Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Then then use this irrational reasoning in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. 
 
Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) refers to known cases in the present times.They would have to be known to become exceptions. Since they are known in 2015, Vatican Council II becomes a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition.This is irrational since these persons would be in Heaven. 
 
According to the press release, with its direct broadcast satellite television and radio services, AM & FM radio networks, worldwide short-wave radio station, Internet website www.ewtn.com, electronic and print news services, and publishing arm, EWTN is the largest religious media network in the world.

EWTN/National Catholic Register does not comment or discuss how John Martignoni , the apologist on EWTN, who is also a member of the Diocesan Staff of Bishop Robert J.Baker, in the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama, where the offices of EWTN and the NCR are situated, contradicts the article on Salvation and the Church written on the EWTN website (by the late Fr.William Most).He also contradicts the interview of Cardinal Gerhard Muller by Edward Pentin, of EWTN's National Catholic Register  placed on the Vatican website.

John Martignoni says 'Zero cases of something are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus' .So how can there be anything in Vatican Council II to contradict the traditional teaching on salvation before 1949? Where are the exceptions in Alabama,USA  in 2015,  to the traditional interpretation of the dogma according to the popes, saints and Vatican Council II itself (AG 7). For the Marchetti letter sero cases are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.

For Brian Patrick & Jerry Usher and EWTN there are known exceptions to the dogma.

There is a problem here. Brian Patrick and Jerry Usher are not going to say that Vatican Council II indicates all Jews, Muslims and other non Catholics need to formally enter the Church with 'faith and baptism' for salvation ( to avoid Hell). It would be the end of their careers at EWTN.

So the largest religious media network in the world changes Catholic Church teaching with an irrationality-and no one complains.-Lionel Andrades

July 18, 2014
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson contradicts USCCB : the baptism of desire is not visible to us and so is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salushttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/archbishop-thomas-egullickson.html


Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/archbishop-thomas-egullickson-says.html#links


Thursday, July 17, 2014
NO DENIAL FROM THE USCCB: IRRATIONALITY BEING USED IN ALL THE U.S DIOCESES IN THE INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II AND THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
____________________________________





Brian Patrick & Jerry Usher Return to EWTN Radio in 2015

Irondale, AL (EWTN) – Two exciting new shows will be coming to the EWTN Global Catholic Radio Network program schedule in 2015: “Morning Glory with Brian Patrick” and “Take 2 with Jerry Usher & Debbie Georgianni.”


COMING THIS SPRING:
“Take 2 with Jerry Usher & Debbie Georgianni”
“Take 2” heralds the return of Jerry Usher, “the undisputed voice of Catholic radio” to EWTN Radio. Joined by motivational and public speaker Debbie Georgianni, “Take 2” is live, interactive, conversational – and will get Catholics asking the right questions of themselves and the culture they live in. “Take 2 With Jerry Usher & Debbie Georgianni” will be heard weekdays on EWTN radio, which will also produce the show.




COMING THIS SUMMER:
“Morning Glory with Brian Patrick"
In addition to his role as “EWTN News Nightly” Executive Producer and Anchor, Brian Patrick returns to EWTN Radio weekday mornings this summer with “Morning Glory,” a Christ centered, full service, live morning show that will have listeners across the country “waking up the Catholic way.”
“Morning Glory with Brian Patrick,” will be heard weekday mornings on EWTN radio, which will also produce the show.
 

        EWTN Global Catholic Network, in its 34th year, is available in over 238 million television households in more than 140 countries and territories. With its direct broadcast satellite television and radio services, AM & FM radio networks, worldwide short-wave radio station, Internet websitewww.ewtn.com, electronic and print news services, and publishing arm, EWTN is the largest religious media network in the world.





TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 2016

The local liberal bishop took over EWTN and projected being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) as an exception to Mother Angelica's understanding of the dogma on salvation

Mother Angelica held the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)  according to the popes,Church Councils and saints. When the local liberal bishop took over EWTN he projected being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) as being an exception to Mother Angelica's understanding of the dogma on salvation.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger supported the local bishop and the USCCB with the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology.It assumes there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS. For the CDF Prefect there was known salvation outside the Church but for Mother Angelica there was no known salvation outside the Church.Cardinal Ratzinger however was still reported as being a fan of EWTN.

Present day EWTN like Pope Benedict, continues to project the dogma EENS as having exceptions.The traditionalists do the same.

When Christopher Ferrara wrote EWTN a Network Gone Wrong he made the same mistake. He did not know that assuming there is known salvation outside the Church, in the new theology,  was responsible for EWTN's break with Tradition.He did not know that there was an objective  error in the theology of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.It was  heresy, approved by the magisterium.

Chris Ferrara would use the irrational premise and inference to interpret Vatican Council II and the result would be non traditional.Then he would reject Vatican Council II.

The new EWTN would also use the same irrational premise and inference to interpret Vatican Council II but would welcome the non traditional result ( like Pope Benedict in his interview with Avvenire) and then accept Vatican Council II.
 The theological committees of the new EWTN, without Mother Angelica, would  then consider Christopher Ferrara and Fr.Nicholas Gruner as 'schismatic', 'pre conciliar' and 'dissenting'.
Ferrara and Fr.Nicholas Gruner did not know that by avoiding the inference, that of there being known exceptions to the dogma EENS, Vatican Council II and EENS, would be in harmony with the old ecclesiology of the Church.
But not every one agrees with the new EWTN without Mother Angelica.
John Martignoni who has a program on EWTN says there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS.He refers to the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as 'zero cases'.Zero cases for him ( and for me) cannot be exceptions to anything.
-Lionel Andrades

___________________________________

What would be the reaction of EWTN or the other forums they are associated with if Fr.Harrison and Patrick Madrid said that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are invisible for us and so - one can also affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church?
 
This was the original position of Mother Angelica. She held the literal interpretation of the dogma according to the popes. Councils and saints. However, when the local liberal bishop took over they projected being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) as being an exception to Mother Angelica's understanding of the dogma on salvation.
Gradually EWTN began saying that it was not necessary for every one in the present times to enter the Catholic Church since there could be visible to us cases saved in invincible ignorance etc. It was assumed there were known exceptions.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/05/frbrian-harrison-like-other-convert.html


When Mother Angelica was there at EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network) there was a page on their website devoted to the Church teaching outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.Mother Angelica insisted that this was the teaching of the Church and made available a list of Church Fathers who affirmed what later became a dogma at the Council of Florence.

 Fr.William Most's artcile on the EWTN website, The Church and Salvation and his article on the internet, The Tragic Errors of Fr.Leonard Feeney placed by EWTN on the internet indicate there is dissent at EWTN and a rejection of the Church's teachings.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2009/10/ewtn-without-mother-angelica-is.html

_________________________________________________


Bishop Robert J.Baker approves the irrational interpretation of EWTN/NCR speakers and writers ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/bishop-robert-jbaker-approves.html

SEPTEMBER 24, 2011


APPEAL TO CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, VATICAN: IT’S TIME TO CLARIFY THE BOSTON HERESY OF RICHARD CUSHING http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/09/appeal-to-congregation-for-doctrine-of.html


ROBERT KENNEDY ASKED RICHARD CUSHING TO SUPPRESS FR.LEONARD FEENEY

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/07/robert-kennedy-asked-richard-cushing-to.html

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-0228-ewtn.htm

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2013

Fr.Leonard Feeney goes undefended.

What the disobedient Feeney said amounted to this: he insisted that all who did not formally enter the Church would go to hell... Further, all adults who did not formally enter the Church - get their names on a parish register - would also go to hell, even if they never had a chance to hear there was a Church, e.g., those in the western hemisphere during the long centuries before Columbus...

Therefore Feeney consigned literally millions upon millions to hell, even though He gave them no chance...

Later Magisterium texts speak of those who pertain to the Church or are joined to the Church by even an unconscious desire, contained in the will to do what is right. John Paul II spoke of a mysterious grace...

No we merely say that some who are Baptists (or other types) can, if they fill the conditions given above, become substantially, not formally, members of the Catholic Church as individuals, and so can be saved.



This EWTN reports says 'even if they never had a chance to hear there was a Church'. If someone 'never had a chance to hear about the Church' and was saved it would be known only to God. So why mention it ? Are these known exceptions to the dogma and Fr.Leonard Feeney. Is EWTN implying that every one does not have to be a 'card carrying member' since there are known exceptions ?


Then EWTN refers to those who' are joined to the Church by even an unconscious desire, contained in the will to do what is right' and who are saved. So these are are known exceptions ? For us to know these cases they must exist. Does the Bishop where EWTN is situated know any such case on earth?

EWTN says 'if they fill the conditions given above, become substantially, not formally, members of the Catholic Church as individuals, and so can be saved' They can be saved but this would be known only to God.These cases are unknown at EWTN so how can they be considered exceptions to the traditional teaching of Fr.Leonard Feeney. They are possibilities but not exceptions.

If the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, being saved in imperfect communion with the Church etc are explicit for us in 2013 then it is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It means those with the baptism of desire etc do not have to convert into the Catholic Church and these cases are known on earth for them to be exceptions.It would mean every one does not have to be a visible member of the Church for salvation as is commonly held. But these cases are unknown to us. Invisible cases cannot be exceptions.
This is irrational. There should be protests at EWTN (viewer@ewtn.com) over this irrationality.


Also the bishop where EWTN is situated should be contacted.Mother Angelica held the literal interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation.

How can EWTN imply there are known cases on earth which are exceptions to every one needing to be a visible member of the Church as was taught for centuries in the Catholic Church.


Does everyone need to be a card carrying member of the Church? Yes - this is the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846, Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the defined dogma Cantate Domino Council of Florence 1441 etc.

And there are no known explicit exceptions as EWTN implies.-Lionel Andrades

___________________________________________________________

The network has occasionally been the subject of criticism for its social, political, and theological positions. In 2000, the Holy See ordered an apostolic visitation to investigate the network. Believing that it could possibly endanger the network's independence and rather than risk it being placed under ecclesiastical control, Mother Angelica turned EWTN over to a board of governors composed exclusively of lay people, which assured its independence from the Holy See. The current president is Michael P. Warsaw.[7] While the network has trustees, it does not have shareholders or owners. A majority of the network's funding is from viewer donations. Its traditional plea for donations is "Keep us between your gas and electric bill".

Doctrinal disputes
In a 1993 episode of Mother Angelica Live, Mother Angelica harshly criticized a mimed re-enactment of the Stations of the Cross at the World Youth Day in Denver, Colorado, which was attended by Pope John Paul II. Mother Angelica was particularly upset that a woman was playing Jesus. Controversial archbishop Rembert Weakland of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee called Mother Angelica's comments "...one of the most disgraceful, un-Christian, offensive, and divisive diatribes I have ever heard".[17] Mother Angelica responded by saying, "He didn't think a woman playing Jesus was offensive? He can go put his head in the back toilet as far as I am concerned"![18]


In 1997, Mother Angelica publicly criticized Cardinal Roger Mahony, then the archbishop of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, for his pastoral letter on the Eucharist called "Gather Faithfully Together: A Guide for Sunday Mass", which she perceived had a lack of emphasis on transubstantiation[19]: "I’m afraid my obedience in that diocese would be absolutely zero. And I hope everybody else’s in that diocese is zero".[20] Cardinal Mahony regarded her comments as accusing him of heresy.[21] Mother Angelica later issued a conditional, albeit reluctant, apology for her comments.

In 1999, Bishop David Foley of the Archdiocese of Birmingham, Alabama issued a decree prohibiting priests in his diocese from celebrating Mass ad orientem ("to the east"; that is, with both the priest and the people facing east) under most circumstances.[22] Although the decree did not specifically mention EWTN, the wording of the decree, which stated that "...any Mass that is or will be televised for broadcast or videotaped for public dissemination", supporters and critics alike generally agreed that the decree was written with EWTN specifically in mind. Bishop Foley stated that the practice of having the priest's back to the people "amounts to making a political statement and is dividing the people."[22]

On January 1, 2006, a book critical of EWTN and Mother Angelica, EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong by Christopher Ferrara, was published. According to the book's promotional website, "Basing itself on extensive evidence taken from EWTN’s own content, and comparing that content to the perennial belief and practice of the Church, the book shows that EWTN’s 'moderately Modernist' version of the Faith is precisely what St. Pius X had in view when he condemned Modernism in all its forms, including what His Holiness called 'the Modernist as reformer'".-Wikipedia
___________________________

THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 2023

EWTN's reports on Fr. Leonard Feeney are political propaganda: Without the Boston Heresy of Pope Pius XII Vatican Council II supports the Jesuit priest on EENS

 EWTN reports on Fr. Leonard Feeney, choose the Boston Heresy of Pope Pius XII and Cardinal Richard Cushing to interpret the baptism of desire and being saved in invincibile ignorance, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and Vatican Council II (LG 8,14,16 etc). Without the Boston Heresy, EWTN apologists and adminstration  would have to support the strict interpretation of EENS. They would emerge as Feeneyites themselves.

The Boston Heresy emerges after invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincibile ignorance(I.I) are considered physically visible examples of known salvation in personal cases, in the present times. Then it is inferred that the dogma EENS has practical exceptions and is now obsolete. So it is concluded that Vatican Concia II is a break with Tradition and has made traditional ecclesiocentrism obsolete.Since outside the Church there is (known) salvation.This was the reasoning of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston approved by the popes from Pius XII to Francis. All the cardinals accepted the irrationality of the 1949 LOHO and so does EWTN.

When the BOD and I.I are interpreted rationally, with the rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion, they are not practical exceptions for EENS.They do not contradict Feeneyite EENS.

But when they are interpreted irrationally, with the irrational premise, inference and non traditional conclusion, they are projected as  practical exceptions for EENS. They contradict Feeneyite EENS.

When the rational premise is used (  and there is no other ethical choice), then the Boston Heresy refers to the heresy of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the popes. They had confused what is invisible (LG 14, LG 16 ) as being visible and then made irrational conclusions, which were political.

So they approved the 1949 LOHO which says not every one needs to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation, as if they knew of some particolar exception in 1949.It was as if they could see or meet someone saved outside the Catholic Church, without faith and the baptism of water.The dogma EENS defined by three Church Councils says the opposite i.e everyone needs to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation.

It is with this Boston Heresy that EWTN has posted some reports on the Internet.

1.Letter to the Archbishop of Boston.

2.Leonard Feeney on 'no salvation outside the Church'.

3.Tragic Errors of Fr. Leonard Feeney.

In these three reports EWTN overlooks the Boston Heresy of Pope Pius XII and Cardinal Richard Cushing.

Without the Boston Heresy EWTN would have to support Fr. Leonard Feeney and interpret Vatican Council II, rationally.The Council would then support the interpretation of EENS according to Fr. Leanard Feeney.

EWTN does not choose to be honest. It has to be political and dishonest. So it does not support the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS and neither Vatican Council II interpreted rationally.

-Lionel Andrades



Letter to the Archbishop of Boston

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/letter-to-the-archbishop-of-boston-2076



https://douglawrence.wordpress.com/tag/fenneyites/


 MARCH 16, 2023
EWTN admits that the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office(LOHO) was not published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis EWTN is dishonest and political
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/03/holy-office-to-archbishop-of-boston.html


Leonard Feeney on 'no salvation outside the Church'

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/leonard-feeney-on-no-salvation-outside-the-church-12315

Tragic Errprs of Fr. Leonard Feeney https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/tragic-errors-of-leonard-feeney-12314
_____________________________________

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2011

EWTN, Trinity Communications, Jefferey Mirus suggest Native Americans before the arrival of the missionaries were saved

EWTN, Trinity Communications, Jefferey Mirus are dishonestly presenting church teaching.
They indicate that the unbaptized in the Western hemisphere before the arrival of Columbas were all saved without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. For them  being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) is the ordinary means of salvation. Also, Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (LG14,  AG 7) was not the ordinary means of salvation for the Native Americans before the missionaries arrived there.

They have been rejecting the Nicene Creed  (1) in which we pray ‘I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin.’ The baptism of water is needed to forgive Original Sin, the stain of Adam.Through baptism, given to adults with Catholic Faith, we accept Jesus’ Sacrifice and salvation from Hell.

This heresy and dishonesty about the Catholic Faith is expressed in an article placed on the internet by EWTN and Jeffrey Mirus’ Trinity Communications. Mirus is the President of Catholic Culture.
 
What the disobedient Feeney said amounted to this: he insisted that all who did not formally enter the Church would go to hell…Further, all adults who did not formally enter the Church - get their names on a parish register - would also go to hell, even if they never had a chance to hear there was a Church, e.g., those in the western hemisphere during the long centuries before Columbus. Therefore Feeney consigned literally millions upon millions to hell, even though He gave them no chance. TRAGIC ERRORS OF LEONARD FEENEY by Fr. William Most -Trinity Communications 1994 and EWTN.
This article also has other errors.

EWTN REMOVES FR.CORAPI BUT CONTINUES TO TEACH HERESY ON FR.LEONARD FEENEY WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL BISHOP

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/09/ewtn-removes-frcorapi-but-continues-to.html
Mother Angelica had a page placed on the EWTN website with the statements of the Church Fathers and popes on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Mother Angelica was removed by the local bishop and the page on extra ecclesiam nulla salus was replaced with Fr.William Most’s errors critical of the dogma and Fr.Leonard Feeney.
 
Just as the Archbishop of Boston misused his powers and placed restrictions on Fr. Leonard Feeney even though the priest was not in heresy, the bishop used his power to change the orthodox teaching on EWTN.

Just as Archbishop Richard Cushing was in heresy for denying that everyone needs to be a visible member of the Church for salvation the local bishop denies the same through EWTN.He also contradicts the Church Councils, the popes, the saints, the dogma and Vatican Council II.

As Cardinal Richard Cushing was in heresy for suggesting that there was explicitly known cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance or with with baptism of desire and so this contradicted the 'infallible teaching' the bishop and the EWTN are in heresy for suggesting that the Native Americans were saved before the arrival of the Catholic missionaries.
This is also the heresy of the Catholic Culture President.
-Lionel Andrades
_______________________________________________________

FR.LEONARD FEENEY: TRAGIC ERRORS BY JEWISH LEFT, TRINITY COMMUNICATIONS AND FR.WILLIAM MOST


1.
The Nicene Creed
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible...In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. (Emphasis added)-Wikipedia
______________________________________________________________

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2016

Bishop Robert J. Baker and Raymond Arroyo could clarify if Mother Angelica was correct on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since there are no known exceptions in 2016

Related image
Bishop Robert J.Baker is the bishop the diocese of Birmingham in Alabama  where EWTN is situated. John Martignoni is the Director of the Office of the New Evangelization and Stewardship in the diocese and is a well known Catholic apologist  with a program on EWTN.
John Martignoni  has said that 'Zero cases of something are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.' In other words we do not know of any explicit exception to all needing to enter the Church for salvation in 2016.This is something obvious. We cannot see any exceptions.
Even for Mother Angelica the founder of EWTN there were no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.She had posted a list on EWTN of the popes and saints affirming the dogma like the 16th century missionaries.It was not like Pope Benedict in his recent interview with Avvenire.
I have asked John Martignoni if there are any exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II for him, since for me there are none. He will not answer.He said there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS but would not comment on Vatican Council II.
Neither will Bishop Baker or the directors and officials of his diocese offices put forward an answer.
They will not disagree or agree with John Martignoni and Bishop Thomas E. Gullickson who say there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS.Obviously there are no known  exceptions! 
For Raymond Arroyo and the speakers on EWTN  situated in Alabama, the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Even for EWTN 's National Catholic Register correspondents there are known exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For Mark Shea and Edward Pentin there are known exceptions.

MOTHER ANGELICA'S EENS
Why cannot we all go back to Mother Angelica's understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus,as interpreted by the 16th century missionaries ? John Martignoni, says there are no known exceptions to the dogma  and Bishop Robert Baker does not know of any one today who does not need to be 'card carrying member of the Church', to avoid the fires of Hell. So why cannot we affirm EENS as did Mother Angelica?

DIOCESE CLARIFICATION
The  diocese of  Birmingham in Alabama and EWTN could  officially affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus  with no known exceptions in 2016.No one in the diocese knows of any exception.

EXCEPTIONS FOR THE POPE
Pope Benedict has said that 'the dogma has evolved' but we do not know of any exceptions, there is no known salvation outside the Church. Pope Benedict could confirm for EWTN or the diocese of Alabama, that he does not know of any one saved outside the Church, without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14).He personally does not know of any one who would be an exception to the 16th century Catholic interpretation of  the dogma.

BISHOPS MISTAKE
The liberal bishop who took over EWTN from Mother Angelica possibly told her that LG 16 for example was an exception to her understanding of EENS. In other words LG 16 referrred not to an invisible but a visible case. It would have to be somebody personally known, physically known to be an exception.Is there such a person for the present bishop in the diocese of EWTN ?

CONFIRMATION NEEDED
We now know that the liberal bishop who initially took over EWTN, which was being criticized by the National Catholic Reporter, assumed that there were known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He made an objective mistake we  now know.So  could Bishop Robert J. Baker confirm this? 

RAYMOND ARROYO
He could simply confirm that there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, there are no known cases in 2016 of persons saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. He could confirm that in 2016 we do not know of any person saved with the baptism of desire and blood or in invincible ignorance, without the baptism of water .
He could ask Raymond Arroyo to state his position on this issue.

FOR ME
1.I personally do not know of any such case of someone being saved without the baptism of water 
2.No one in the past could have known of any such case. Physically they could not see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of desire etc.Neither could they say that any particular person on earth was saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
3.Those who refer to 'the desirethereof ' (Council of Trent) do not state that these cases were explicit and personally known. It was theologians who interpreted these cases as being explicit.So when a  baptism of desire list is presented, for me,there is not a single reference which says that these cases are objective or relevant to EENS.The entire list is irrelevant to EENS. They are not exceptions.
4. No one who issued the Baltimore Catechism knew of a case of some one saved with 'only the desire' and without the baptism of water. So how could they speculate that 'the desire thereof' was a known baptism like the baptism of water? This was irrational. The baptism of water is physical. The baptism of desire is not.
So if any of the speakers on EWTN says there is salvation outside the Church it is speculation. This speculation cannot be posited as being an explicit exception to the dogma on salvation.

AGREE WITH ME
Bishop Baker, Raymond Arroyo and the EWTN speakers and apologists could say  for example the following. 
1. There are no known cases of someone saved outside the Church past or present and so there are no known exceptions to the dogma as it was known in the 16 th century. This is a rational option.
2.They could  say that LG 16,LG 8, NA 2, UR 3 etc refer to invisible and not visible cases. So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict EENS as it was known in the past.
3.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake when it assumed that hypothetical cases were objectively known.There are no known cases of the baptism of desire or blood or being saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water in 2016.

INVISIBLE OR VISIBLE
As I mentioned in a comment on a post on The Catholic World Report, for  me Lumen Gentium  16 refers to an invisible case and so it does not contradict EENS. When there are no exceptions to EENS, the theology is once again traditional and rational.Is it the same for Bishop Robert J. Baker ?
To change the dogma EENS is heresy. To reject it is heresy.To interpret Vatican Council II with an irrationality to produce a non traditional result, is heresy. It is  not affirming Vatican Council II in line with the dogma EENS.It is  changing the dogma EENS, the Nicene Creed and Vatican Council II with an irrational premise ( physically seeing people saved in Heaven without the baptism of water) and a non traditional inference ( these explicit cases in Heaven or earth are known exceptions to EENS).This is being done on EWTN and in the religious and catechetical departments of the EWTN diocese.Could we have a clarification ?.
-Lionel Andrades


The local liberal bishop took over EWTN and projected being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) as an exception to Mother Angelica's understanding of the dogma on salvation

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/the-local-liberal-bishop-took-over-ewtn.html

______________________________________________________________


Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)