There are no physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church.While the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) says all need to be members of the Church for salvation( to avoid Hell).
So Michael Matt could not have known of anyone saved outside the Church.
Michael Matt, Editor, Remnant News (0.38 ) 1 has said Jews who follow the old Law can be saved.This is said on a video posted on the website of the Most Holy Family Monastery(MHFM).
Matt does not make the objective-subjective, explicit-implicit, visible-invisible distinction. As a possibility known only to God, a Jew could be saved in his religion.But this would be subjective for us. This would be an invisible case.All things are possible with God.So it is also possible that there are no non Catholics saved outside the Church over the last 100 years.A possibility is not an actual case which is known.
So there can be no exceptions.
There are no known exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. I repeat, all non Catholics need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no physically visible or personally known exceptions.
So there can be no exceptions.
There are no known exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. I repeat, all non Catholics need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no physically visible or personally known exceptions.
This ends the confusion.Then we would know Michael Matt's position on all Jews needing to convert into the Church.He would be saying that there are no hypothetical cases, saved without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14, Vatican Counci II), known to him and all of us.
So with the traditional interpretation of EENS changed with this irrationality( possibilities are known exceptions to EENS) there is a false church brought into the Catholic Church. The Most Holy Family Monastery(MHFM) call it the 'Vatican II sect'. It could also be called, 'New Church', Am-Church etc and the traditionalists are a part of it.
Michael Matt uses the common irrationality to interpret Vatican Council II. So the Council emerges as a rupture with the original interpretation of EENS.
But for me even the MHFM are part of the problem.
They affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS but reject the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) as exceptions. Michael and Peter Dimond see BOD,BOB and I.I as referring to personally known and physically visible people, saved outside the Church or assumed to be saved outside the Church. But physically there are no such people. So there are no exceptions to EENS.
They continue with this error in their interpretation of Vatican Council II. LG 16(invincible ignorance), LG 14( hypothetical case of the unknown catechumen) etc are exceptions to the dogma EENS for them. So they reject Vatican Council II.They are irrational here.
I can interpret invincible ignorance(LG 16) as being only a hypothetical case always.
They extend this false reasoning of theirs to other magisterial documents besides Vatican Council II.
I can interpret invincible ignorance(LG 16) as being only a hypothetical case always.
They extend this false reasoning of theirs to other magisterial documents besides Vatican Council II.
The Catechism of Pope Pius X would contradict itself and also contradict the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX for them. The Catechism of Pope Pius X mentions being saved in invincible ignorance and also says all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation.They see invisible ignorance as referring to a visible case and for me it is invisible.
The Catechism of Pope Pius X ( invincible ignornance) would also contradict the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on outside the Church there is no salvation and an ecumenism of return.There is contradiction for me.Since I avoid their bad reasoning.
Since Michael and Peter Dimond do not make the visible and invisible distinction, like Michael Matt, Pope Leo the Great and St.Thomas Aquinas would also be confusing for them.Quanta Cura and Mystici Corporis would also be confusing for them.
They traditionalists and sedevacatists use the same bad reasoning as the Vatican and the Bishops' Conference.
They traditionalists and sedevacatists use the same bad reasoning as the Vatican and the Bishops' Conference.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) and Bishop Peter Libasci, the Bishop of Manchester, USA do not make the visible-invisible,objective-subjective distinction when interpreting EENS and Vatican Council II.This helps them to be ideologically correct and pretend that they are following Vatican Council II.This was how Pope Francis interpreted Vatican Council II when he was asking about the meeting in Abu Dhabi.
They use the false premise.Then Vatican Council II becomes a rupture with Tradition ( EENS etc). I call this interpretation of the Council , Vatican Council II( Cushingite).Vatican Council II(Cushingite) is a rupture with EENS( Feeneyite).When Vatican Council II is interpreted without the irrationality, then we have Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite). The CDF, Bishop Libasci and the traditionalists only know of EENS and Vatican Council II Cushingite.
Now the CDF and Bishop Libasci are forcing Brother Andre Marie, MICM, Prior, St.Benedict Center, H.H , USA to also accept EENS( Cushingite) and Vatican Council II ( Cushingite).
Brother Andre Marie in his Doctrinal Letter sent to the CDF, which can be read on their website Catholicism.org has affirmed EENS and Vatican Council II, but without the irrationality.
Brother Andre Marie correctly does not interpret Vatican Council II like the Dimonds and Michael Matt.At the same time he is not rejecting Vatican Council II or EENS.
But for ideological reasons this is not being accepted by the CDF and the Diocese of Manchester.
I do not know what stops the Most Holy Family Monastery and the Remnant News to also affirm Vatican Council II and EENS like Brother Andre Marie.
Instead they interpret Vatican Council II, like EWTN and the present two popes, and the rest of the liberals.
Since Brother Andre Marie and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St. Benedict Center, in the Diocese of Manchester refuse to cave in, the diocese has decreed that they are legally not Catholics. In the non legal status would also be included the past popes and saints, including St. Thomas Aquinas.
Michael Matt, Chris Ferrara, Roberto dei Mattei and the Fatima Center would be acceptable to the present two popes.The Left does not really have a problem with them. Since they interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with the irrationality.A rupture with Tradition is created.They do not make the personally known or unknown distinction, which the St. Benedict Center has made in the correspondence with the CDF in 2016.-Lionel Andrades
1
Michael Matt, False Traditionalism & The Church In The End Times
https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/E-Exchanges.php?utm_source=HPP&utm_medium=button&utm_campaign=Homepage2
Posts
