Cover up -2

There has been a cover up on extra ecclesiam nulla salus from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which was affirmed by the Vatican to the recent Press Conference on Placuit Deo by Cardinal Luiz Ladaria.
Pope Francis and Pope Benedict support the denial of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This is first class heresy. It also changes the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades

AUGUST 31, 2018

Cover up

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/cover-up.html

Repost - What is pathetic is that the SSPX makes the same mistake :Muller-Fellay Meeting

OCTOBER 3, 2014

What is pathetic is that the SSPX makes the same mistake :Muller-Fellay Meeting

The General House of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) in Switzerland has just released an interview granted by the Superior-General of the SSPX, Bp. Bernard Fellay, on the meaning of the meeting held with the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Cardinal Gerhard Müller, on September 23.

In this section of the interview on the subject of  doctrine  Cardinal Walter Kaspar and Bishop Bernard Fellay are ignorant of how 'new princioples', doctrinal changes, are based on the irrationality of being able to see the dead on earth.They infer that these these deceased are explicit exceptions to all needing to enter the Church for salvation. This irrationality is now being adapted to marriage.

In the proposals of Cardinal Kasper, where do you see a pastoral application that makes more evident a doctrinal change introduced during the Council? Where do you see a “time bomb?” 

Bishop Fellay:
In the interview that he (Cardinal Kaspar) granted to the Vaticanist Andrea Tornielli on September 18th, the Cardinal says: “Church doctrine is not a closed system: the Second Vatican Council teaches us that there is a development, meaning that it is possible to look into this further.

Lionel: When he refers to a development in ecclesiology he is going back to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which infers that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are visble, known in the present times.So they are  exceptions for him to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. 1 So Vatican Council II has 'developed' when Lumen Gentium 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance) etc are visible for him.They(LG 16 etc)  refer, for Cardinal Kaspar, to  known in 2014 exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

I wonder if a deeper understanding similar to what we saw in ecclesiology, is possible in this case (i.e. that of divorced Catholics who have remarried civilly).

Lionel: By a deeper understanding in ecclesiology he means there is known salvation outside the Church, since the deceased now saved and who are in Heaven are also visible and known on earth in 2014.He concludes that these deceased-visible for him are known exceptions to Fr.Leonard Feeney's understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Although the Catholic Church is Christ’s true Church, there are elements of ecclesiality beyond the institutional boundaries of the Church too.

Lionel: And these cases are visible and known for him in 2014 to be exceptions to the traditional ecclesiology. So there is 'a development of docrine' for him with this irrationality.This is the interpretation  acceptable to the Jewish Left.

Couldn’t some elements of sacramental marriage also be recognized in civil marriages in certain cases? For example, the lifelong commitment, mutual love and care, Christian life and a public declaration of commitment that does not exist in common-law marriages.”

Lionel:He does not know any exception to the rule, yet he will assume that the exception must now be the rule.Similarly he  does not know of any non Catholic saved outside the visible limits of the Church i.e without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water, but he willl assume that there is a defacto case in 2014 and so the traditional teaching has changed, for him.

Cardinal Kasper is quite logical and perfectly consistent: he proposes applying pastorally to marriage the new principles concerning the Church that were spelled out at the Council in the name of ecumenism:

  Lionel: These 'new principles' have not come into the Church at Vatican Council II. They came into the Church in 1949 at Boston. They were accepted by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the SSPX bishops and priests.

Hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire etc were assumed to be visible and known exceptions, to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.In other words the deceased-saved were objectively seen to be exceptions to all needing to enter the Church. They accepted this irrationality and did not know that this was a contradiction of the Catholic Church's traditonal teaching on ecumenism and other religions.So Vatican Council II emerged as a break with the past for Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops who  did not know what caused this break.They were not aware of the irrational premise being used in the interpretation. Any magisterial document interpreted, while assuming the dead are visible, will emerge non traditional.

there are elements of ecclesiality outside the Church. He moves logically from ecclesial ecumenism to matrimonial ecumenism.

Lionel: It should be logical for Bishop Bernard Fellay since he too, interprets Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in the same way as Cardinal Walter Kaspar.

Thus, in his opinion, there are elements of Christian marriage outside of the sacrament.

Lionel: Which he knows personally and which can be verified! These known cases are once again exceptions to the rule.

Cardinal Cushing got away with it once , with reference to salvation. He is trying to see if he can get away with it a second time, this time with marriage.

In both cases the theological error is based on non existent cases. Hypothetical cases are considered defacto exceptions to Tradition.

What is pathetic is that the SSPX makes the same mistake.

To look at things concretely, just ask spouses what they would think of “ecumenical” marital fidelity or fidelity in diversity! Similarly, what are we supposed to think about a so-called “ecumenical” doctrinal unity that is united in diversity? This sort of result is what we denounce, but the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith either does not see it or else does not accept it.

Lionel:

The Holy Office in 1949 made an objecive mistake and the Holy Office today (CDF) does not want to acknowledge it.-Lionel Andrades

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/interview-fellay-speaks-about-meeting.html#more

1.

In the course of the Council the “subsistit in” took the place of the previous “est”. It contains in nuce the whole ecumenical problem. The “est” claimed that the church of Christ Jesus “is” the Catholic Church. This strict identification of the church of Christ Jesus with the Catholic Church had been represented most recently in the encyclicals Mystici corporis (1943) and Humani generis (1950). But even according to Mystici corporis there are people who, although they have not yet been baptised, are subsumed under the Catholic Church because that is their express desire (DS 3921). Therefore Pius XII had condemned an exclusive interpretation of the axiom “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” already in 1949.- Cardinal Walter Kaspar, on the website of the Vatican Council for Christian Unity


http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/card-kasper-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20041111_kasper-ecumenism_en.html

 

January 31, 2014

...and also Cardinal Walter Kaspar  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/search/label/Cardinal%20walter%20Kaspar 

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2014/10/what-is-pathetic-is-that-sspx-makes.html

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2014/10/what-is-pathetic-is-that-sspx-makes.html

Repost - King's College,London uses an irrational premise in the interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

OCTOBER 6, 2014

King's College,London uses an irrational premise in the interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Kings College, London and the University of Bristol have a Department of Theology and Religious Studies, in which they reject the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, with the irrationality of being able to see the dead now saved and who are alleged examples of salvation outside the Church.


King's is home to one of the top 10 departments in the UK for Theology & Religious Studies (The Complete University Guide 2013). Located centrally in the heart of London, the College is ideally placed for sharing in, and playing an active role in, the academic and cultural life of the nation's capital.http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/trs/study/whykings.aspx

Annie Paish at Kings College, England in Dispelling the Myths about extra ecclesiam nulla salus 1  explains how up to the fourth century and the time of St.Augustine the Catholic Church taught that there was nosalvation for those who had rejected the gospel AND for those who had not heard it .The reason was : Original Sin .

Then she makes a detour when she comes to St.Thomas Aquinas and refers to his 'changing views on those who had never been preached the gospel'.

Here we see the entrance of the irrational premise.

The man in the forest who is in invincible ignorance and who has not had the Gospel preached to him,for her, is a known exception in the present times, to all needing to convert into the Church for salvation.

This was a theoretical case which St.Thomas Aquinas mentioned and he also said that this person in ignorance would be saved because God would  send a preacher to him before he dies.

UNAM SANCTUM 
She then interprets Pope Boniface VIII' Unam Sanctum with this mistake.She writes ' the bull Unam sanctum (1302) declared that the only way to salvation was through being a subject of the Pope .' Correct. One had to be a formal member of the Church with 'faith and baptism'. Then comes her interpretation-' those who know that the Church is the true way to salvation, and still choose to deny and reject this, will not be granted salvation '. Pope Boniface does not say those who know but all need to enter the Church. This was also the position of St.Thomas Aquinas and St.Augustine.Those who know or do not know are known only to God. They are not known to us, for example, in 2014.So every one  in 2014 needs the baptism of water in the Catholic Church ( as the dogma teaches) and there are no known cases of someone who knew but did not enter and is damned. , or some one saved this year in invincible ignorance.
Annie Paish influenced by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumes that those saved in invincible ignorance are known to us in the present times and so would be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This would be the normal teaching at the Kings College, London.

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/prospectus/graduate/index/name/theology-and-religious-studies/alpha/t/header_search/

Annie Paish continues to assume that those who are in invincible ignorance ( and not culpable) are persons whom we can know personally and so they are exceptions to the understanding of St.Augustine.

POPE PIUS XII
She writes Pope Pius IX  stated 'well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church” . So Pius XII supports the dogma and Fr.Leonard Feeney.But then she infers extra ecclesiam nulla salus applies 'only to those who are culpably outside of the Church' i.e those who know about the Church but do not enter.
She is not aware. She repeats the irrationality in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. (See the analyses of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 below)
Again she writes under the title Pope Pius XII and Mystici Corporis “to gain eternal salvation it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality as a member of the Church, but it is required that he belong to it at least in desire and longing".She has picked up the text from the Letter of the Holy Office which denies the dogma as interpreted by the Church Councils.
The Letter of the Holy Office infers that the baptism of desire/implicit desire is known to us in personal cases. This is false . Since those who are saved with the baptism of desire are in Heaven. They cannot be  explicit exceptions, on earth, to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.

VATICAN COUNCIL II
She then comes to Vatican Council II with the same error.Lumen Gentium 8 refers to 'subsist it' and 'elements of sanctification and of truth [which] are found outside of its visible structure' neither of which are exceptions to all needing to enter the Catholic Church with faith and baptism for salvation.
LG 8 refers to theoretical,hypothetical cases which cannot be defacto exceptions to the dogma in the present times.Annie Parish cannot name any one this year who is an exception.

She says “since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery” (GS 22)  Yes in potential salvation is offered to all.However  one has to respond to receive it.Every one is not automatically saved. To be saved a person needs 'faith and baptism'(Ad Gentes 7) in the Catholic Church.Ad Gentes 7 supports the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Annie Paish has not mentioned AG 7.Not even once has she mentioned it!

ANONYMOUS CHRISTIAN

She refers to  Karl Rahner's Anonymous Christian and mentions  'the universality of God’s salvific will '. This is there in potential but according to Vatican Council II one needs faith and baptism for actual salvation.

Rahner ' holds that non-Christians who live good lives that compose (unknowingly to them) of God’s grace, may be called anonymous Christians '.This is  a possibility for Rahner. However we do not know any such case in 2014.So for someone to be saved as such we would have to know a particular case.This is not possible.Humans cannot see or know someone in Heaven this year saved as an Anonymous Christian and who did not need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of Desire..Rahner's Anonymous Christian is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Here is the mechanics of her error.

LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).

Lionel:

Correct. The Council of Trent mentions implicit desire and so do the popes and saints.

It must be noted though that the Council of Trent does not state that these cases are visible to us in the present times or that they are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It does not state that we 'know' who are these persons.

Obviously, how can we know who has been saved as such, how can we seen them in Heaven for example in 2014?

Now, comes the false conclusion in this passage.

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

 Lionel:

Since there are cases visible to them of persons saved with implicit desire, there is known salvation oustide the Church.This is the subtle false premise. So the conclusion is 'that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member'. The dogma says every one needs to enter the Church for salvation here it is denied.

The traditional teaching is that all the members of other religions and Christian communities need to formally enter the Church ( with faith and baptism).Here the Letter infers that there are known exceptions outside the Church.So the dogma has been rejected.

It is implied that those saved with implicit desire are known or knowable and those who are in invincible ignorance can also be saved and they are known to us.

The conclusion is that not every one needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation as was traditionally taught but only those who 'know'.

False reasoning leads to a false conclusion. Here it is:-

Letter of the Holy Office 1949 says:

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/false-conclusion-from-letter-of-holy.html

The Letter of the Holy Office is also analysed here 2.

The same wrong inference has been made  made by Prof. Gavin D'Costa , a professor of theology at the University of Bristol,England.1.At both universities in England  they assume that the dead now saved in Heaven are visible and known on earth to be exceptions to the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus.
2.They have picked up this error from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which inferred that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
3.Kings College, London and the University of Bristol have a Department of Theology and Religious Studies, in which they reject the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, with this irrationality of being able to see the dead now saved and who are allegedly examples of salvation outside the Church.
4.They mix up hypothetical cases as being defacto known in the present times and then allege that this is the official teaching of the Catholic Church after Vatican Council.-Lionel Andrades

1.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:86VwiL0-408J:www.kingscollege.net/gbrodie/Paish%2520%2520Dispelling%2520the%2520Myths%2520Behind.pptx+&cd=51&hl=it&ct=clnk&client=gmail

2.
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
‘knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ’, those who ‘know’ or those who do not know and who are are saved with the baptism of desire are not known to us.Why mention this with reference to the dogma?.In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).

Lionel:
Why mention all this theology when you do not know a single such case in reality ? Did the Holy Office assume that these cases are visible and personally known exceptions?
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Lionel:
‘Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member.Why? Do you know of some exception in the area where you live? 
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Lionel:
So a person with implicit desire (which is not explicit and one who is ‘involved in invincible ignorance’ are visible ? And so they are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? And ‘ that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member’?
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Lionel:
So the Letter is saying that Pope Pius XII assumed implicit for us cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so ‘one may obtain eternal salvation’ under these conditions,and ‘ it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member’.Not always required that he be a member of the Church ?. Defacto, this would be heresy.
Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”
Lionel:
This is the traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is Feeneyism. It will soon be contradicted.
Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition “in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church” (AAS, 1. c., p. 243).-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
He is referring to a hypothetical case and assumes that it is relevant to the dogma.
With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, , in , n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, , in , n. 1677).-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Lionel:
‘With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire’ .In other words ‘ all united to the Church only by implicit desire’ are physically visible to us and so are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Centers were wrong.
From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical , fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Lionel:
They (From the Housetops) did not consider implicit desire as explicit for us and so an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.They were saying that all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church with no exception.
Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a “Defender of the Faith,” and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities,

Lionel:
The lawful authorities in the Archdiocese of Boston were saying that there were known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. 
and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
Fr.Leonard Feeney would be excommunicated in a few years after this, for holding the traditional interpretation of the dogma and the Archbishop would not deny reports in the secular media saying that the Church has changed its teaching on outside the Church there is no salvation. The Holy Office never objected.
Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the “” which is prescribed by the sacred canons.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
For Cardinal Cushing to say that there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus is heresy. It is also irrational.He was to give the imprimatur ?!
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church “only by an unconscious desire.” Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Lionel:
‘submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation’, when an irrationality is being taught.
http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/this-just-in/#comments
________________________________________________

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2014/10/kings-college-uses-irrational-premise.html

Repost - Extra ecclesiam nulla salus defined three times is denied by Pope Francis, the Vatican Curia and Jesuits among others.This is first class heresy and a mortal sin

OCTOBER 5, 2014

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus defined three times is denied by Pope Francis, the Vatican Curia and Jesuits among others.This is first class heresy and a mortal sin

Michael Brown, Spirit Daily

Like Pontiffs before him the Pope recently emphasized that we must respect other

 religions (including Islam) and that if they posit one God they are basically, if not 

always perfectly, seeking to tap into the same source. We must find common.

Lionel:

 The pope does not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

He interprets Vatican Council II with an irrational premise. He has

 never cited Ad Gentes 7 in Vatican Council II which says all need

 faith and baptism for salvation.

He accepts an irrational premise in the Letter of the Holy Office 

1949 which results in a chanage in the traditional teaching of the 

Catholic Church on other religions and Christian communities.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is not allowing

 the Franciscans of the Immaculate and the Society of St.Pius X 

to interpret Vatican Council without implying that salvation in 

Heaven is visible to us on earth and these 'ghosts' are explicit 

exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Michael Brown,Spirit Daily

John Paul II once created an uproar by declaring that salvation is possible 

for Christians in other  denominations.

Lionel:

If someone is saved in another religion it is not an exception to

 the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since this case would

 not be known in the present times. The Letter of the Holy

 Office  1949 made an objective  mistake when it inferred that

 these  cases are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla 

salus.In other words they are explicit for us in the present times. 

This factual error is incorporated in Vatican Council II (LG 14 etc),

 the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257-160) and other 

magisterial documents.

Michael Brown,Spirit Daily

It was a fore-echoing of Pope Francis.

Venezuelan mystic Maria Esperanza, whose cause for sainthood is moving 

forward, once said:

"I don't deny anyone his own faith. I respect the faith of all people because

 you just follow what your parents teach you.

 I think we all go to the same source, but through different fountains. And so,

 why do we all fight against  each other?"

 (in The Bridge To Heaven).

Lionel: 

If we all go to the same source why did Jesus have to die,

 why did he ask for the baptism of water for all ?

Michael Brown,Spirit Daily

It was a fore-echoing of Pope Francis.

Lionel:

The the pope has never said that according to Vatican

 Council II (AG 7) the  majority of people are oriented

 to Hell since they do  not have 'faith and baptism' 

necssary for salvation. Pope Francis has rejected the

 faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church, in

 public.

Michael Brown,Spirit Daily

In turn, Esperanza hearkened to the Blessed Virgin of Medjugorje, where Mary 

said (October 1, 1981), "Members of all faiths are equal before God. God rules 

over each faith just like a sovereign over his kingdom. In the world, all religions 

are not the same because all people have not complied with the commandments

 of God. They reject and disparage them."

Lionel:

This would be  rejection of the de fide teachings on the 

necessity of the baptism of water for salvation for  all.

This is if she said this and meant it as such.

Michael Brown,Spirit Daily

The Blessed Mother had caused a minor uproar in the early 1980s when

 asked who the holiest woman in  the area was, for she allegedly told a visionary 

(Mirjana Dragicevic Soldo, in Sarajevo at the time) that  the answer was a local

 Muslim woman.

Lionel:

I personally asked Fr.Slavko Barbaric OFM this question.He 

was the Spiritual  Director of the visionaries. 

He denied that Our Lady had said this to any of the 

visionaries.

Michael Brown,Spirit Daily

Looking for the good in others -- such as devout Muslims -- does not mean

 ignoring basic  issues with a religion. Yes, a Muslim may be holy, in a religion

 that is obviously flawed. We are to love everyone and respect everyone

Lionel:

The Catholic Church has taught, before and after Vatican

 Council  II that the  Muslim religion is not a path to salvation

 and that Muslims  are oriented to  Hell without 'faith and 

baptism'(AG 7).

According to Vatican Council II billions of

 people are on the way to Hell since they  die without Catholic 

 Faith and the baptism of water.This is also the teaching of the 

dogma defined three times on extra ecclesiam nulla  salus which

 Pope Francis, the Vatican Curia and the Jesuits among  others 

do not affirm. This is a  first class heresy  since it changes the

Nicene Creed. It is a rejection of the Creed.This is a mortal sin.

Tolerance of other religions does not mean lying down and taking Muslim persecution and brutality
http://www.spiritdaily.com/religions.htm






http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2014/10/extra-ecclesiam-nulla-salus-defined.html

Repost - We do not know any objective case and it's theology is being discussed in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949

SEPTEMBER 13, 2014

We do not know any objective case and it's theology is being discussed in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949

We do not know any objective case and it's theology is being discussed in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.We have principles ,declarations and theology based on non existent persons.

There are no known cases and the theology of a non existent case is being discussed.It is  as if we know someone in particular  who has been saved or is going to be saved a such.

Fr.R:

3.You agree that empirically, objectively the deceased are not visible to us on earth? Yes, of course

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Lionel:

We do not know any case of someone 'knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff,...'.You have agreed that empirically, objectively the deceased are not visible to us on earth? Yes, of course

Does not the  Letter imply that we do know such a case. So these persons , are inferred to be exceptions to all needing to enter the Church with faith and baptism. 

We empirically cannot see or know any exception and yet the Letter says here 'no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established..' Why mention this ? There is not a single person known as such and the Letter is putting forward principles and discussing the theology of a non existent person?

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. -Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Lionel:

Again the Letter of the Holy Office assumes that those saved with 'only desire and longing' are physically visible on earth to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. We do not know any objective case and it's theology is being discussed above. We have principles ,declarations and theology based on non existent persons.

 

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. -Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Lionel:

This seems like a lot of nonsense. There are no known cases and the theology of a non existent case is being discussed.It is  as if we know someone in particular  who has been saved as such or is going to be saved a such.

 

1949

Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston – Decree Regarding Leonard Feeney, April 18, 1949

Rev. Leonard Feeney, S.J., because of grave offense against the laws of the Catholic Church has lost the right to perform any priestly function, including preaching and teaching of religion.

Any Catholics who frequent St. Benedict’s Center, or who in any way take part in or assist its activities forfeit the right to receive the Sacrament of Penance and Holy Eucharist.

Given at Boston on the 18th day of April, 1949.

Lionel:

'has lost the right to perform any priestly function, including preaching and teaching of religion.' Note, we now have an Archbishop Richard J.Cushing  who is teaching that there is known salvation outside the Church when he does not know of a single such case.

Since Fr.Leonard Feeney would not admit that there is salvation outside the Church he removes his right to teach religion etc.

-Lionel Andrades

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2014/09/we-do-not-know-any-objective-case-and.html