Repost : Benedictine bishops, like other bishops and cardinals, do not affirm de fide teachings of the Catholic Church. They are denying it in public. This is manifest heresy and a mortal sin : Most Holy Family Monastery, USA

 

 OCTOBER 4, 2018

Benedictine bishops, like other bishops and cardinals, do not affirm de fide teachings of the Catholic Church. They are denying it in public. This is manifest heresy and a mortal sin ( The Crossroads at 23rd Street )

1917 Code of Canon Law (Can. 146) and the Legitimacy of the MHFM

1917 Code of Canon Law
Book I: General Norms (Can. 1-6)
Title IX: Ecclesiastical Offices (Can. 145-196)
Chapter I: The Provision of Ecclesiastical Office
Can. 146: "An ecclesiastical office cannot be validly obtained without canonical provision".

Canonical Provision: It comprises three distinct acts - the designation of the person, canonical institution, and installation. In various ways a person may be designated to fill a vacant benefice: by election, postulation, presentation, or recommendation, resignation made in one's favor, or approved exchange. In all cases confirmation by the proper ecclesiastical superior of the selection made is required, while letters of appointment, as a rule, must be presented.

Lionel: However the person must affirm the teachings of the Catholic Church, this is also a requirement.I mentioned in a previous post that the 'official Benedictines' reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), they interpret the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) as referring to known people saved outside the Church when practically there are no such known people. They affirm irrational Vatican Council II (Cushingite) which is a rupture with Tradition.It is heretical and schismatic.They do not accept Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) which is in harmony with the past ecclesiology, the Syllabus of Errors, EENS and the Catechisms.

So Michael and Peter Dimond would call the official Benedictines and the other religious communities, 'the Vatican Council II sect 'and consider them anathema. I would call them the 'false church' ,with new doctrines created with a New Theology, within the true Church.

This is also a canonical issue.

___________________________________

Reception of administration by a chapter without such letters brings excommunication reserved to the pope, together with privation of the fruits of the benefice; and the nominee loses “ipso facto” all right to the prelacy. Ordinarily greater benefices are conferred by the pope; minor benefices by the bishop, who as a rule has the power of appointing to all benefices in his diocese. The pope, however, owing to the fullness of his jurisdiction, may appoint to any benefice whatsoever.

Thus, the law is clear ... without legitimacy (canonical provision), without the consecrated authority to act on God’s behalf to establish an ecclesiastical office [a monastery] to preach / teach the scattered flock, even with the best of intentions, it is against the Code of Canon Law bringing with it an “ipso facto” sentence of excommunication.

Lionel: The two popes and the cardinals and bishops assume invisible BOD, BOB and I.I are visible exceptions to the dogma EENS as it was known, for example, to the Magisterium of the 16th century. All those who want to enter religious life have to accept this heresy.This is first class heresy since the Nicene Creed has been changed.

I would not be able to enter a religious community since for me invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I are not visible exceptions to EENS. Similarly Michael and Peter would have no chance of joining the Benedictines since they affirm traditional EENS.BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions to EENS for them.

This is a canonical issue. 

___________________________________

Next; as found within the 1918 version of The New Canon Law: A Commentary and Summary of the New Code of Canon Law; by Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, O.F.M.
The Second Book: Laws Concerning Persons
Part I: Laws Concerning the Clergy
Section II: Clerics Individually
Title VII: The Supreme Authority and Those who by Law Share in it

(146) The Supreme Authority alone can erect ecclesiastical provinces, dioceses, abbeys [monasteries] or prelatures nullius, vicariates apostolic, prefectures apostolic; or change their limits, divide, unite, suppress them.

Lionel: The New Code of Canon Law expects Catholics to say that invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I are visible. Then they have to interpret Magisterial documents with this irrationality.

This is an impediment to being a Catholic . A Catholic has to affirm this irrationality, heresy and schism to be in good standing with the Church.

It is a canon law issue.

____________________________________

The FACTs:

• Joseph Natale (1932-1995), the founder of the “concept” MHFM, was a layman and NEVER was a professed religious.
• Joseph Natale NEVER received permission from a Benedictine Bishop (delegated by the Supreme Authority) to establish his congregation.
• The same applies to Frederick “Michael” Dimond.

Thus ... NO Canonical Provision.

Lionel: They do not want Canonical Provision from heretical ecclesiastics who do not recant and corrent themselves  in public even after being informed of the error.

___________________________________

Simply put ... the Dimond Brothers of the MHFM, as laymen, are acting outside the laws of the Church established in 1917 ... long before Vatican II was ever held.

Lionel: The 'Church' today is a rupture with the Church in the pre-1930's since a false premise is used to interpret Vatican Council II. This can be avoided. But the duplicity is continued for political reasons.

The 'Church' needs to correct itself doctrinally and theologically and then invite Peter and Michael Dimond, the SSPX and other traditionalists and sedevacantist, into the Church, with full canonical status.

___________________________________

In the Canon Law Digest, Volume 3, Can. 147 (page 71) it reads: “Excommunication as vitandus is inflicted for accepting office from a lay authority.”; which is exactly the grievous error committed by Bro. Michael when he self-declared himself, as a layman, Superior of the MHFM.

For it is clearly indicated concerning the “official” Benedictine requirements for obtaining the legitimate position of a Superior within a Benedictine monastery:

Lionel: The CDF Prefect, Cardinal Luiz Ladaria Sj at the Placuet Deo Press Conference this year denied the dogma EENS and re-interpreted Vatican Council II with an irrational premise.He also did not affirm Vatican Council II ( without the premise).This was all done in  public.This too would result in automatic excommunication according to the Magisterium of the past.

_________________________________

1910 “Declarations on the Rule of Our Holy Father St. Benedict and Statutes of the American-Cassinese Congregation” / permissu superiorum (by permission of the superiors), approved by the HOLY SEE under Pope Pius X (page 55):

“No one, however, can be elected unless he has made solemn vows, is ordained to the priesthood and belongs to our congregation.”

Lionel : He must also affirm the dogma EENS according to St.Benedict.

________________________________

Denzinger: The Sources of Catholic Dogma

967 Can. 7: “If anyone says that ... those who have been neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority, but come from a different source, are lawful ministers of the word …: let him be anathema [cf. n. 960].”

Lionel : Any one who changes the meaning of the Nicene Creed and rejects the dogma EENS is also anathema.

________________________________

Anathema is a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication.

To reiterate the FACTs:

• Joseph Natale was a layman and NEVER was a professed religious.
• Joseph Natale NEVER received permission from a Benedictine Bishop (delegated by the Supreme Authority) to establish his congregation.
• Joseph Natale NEVER received “Holy Orders”, was NEVER ordained to the priesthood, and therefore had NO legitimate claim to the position / title of Superior.
• The same applies to Frederick “Michael” Dimond.

Thus, once again ... NO Canonical Provision.

Lionel : Benedictine bishops, like all other bishops and cardinals, do not affirm de fide teachings of the Catholic Church. They are denying it in public. This is manifest heresy and a mortal sin.

____________________________________

It is unfortunate, indeed, that there are a multitude of obstinate persons who do not quite, or willfully refuse, to understand that the purpose of this project is NOT an attempt to unjustly defame or denigrate the innocent; but rather it is a continued effort to keep on “sounding the alarm” concerning the fraud being perpetuated upon the “scattered flock” by a narcistic, miscreant by the name of Frederick “Michael” Dimond; posing as an ecclesiastic Superior within his secular “not-for-profit corporation”; disguised as a self-identified Order of St Benedict (OSB) deceitfully called the “Most Holy Family Monastery” (MHFM).

It's still not too late to repent Brother Michael.

Lionel: The unknown, anonymous owner of this website/blog as a Catholic could also respond to these posts.-Lionel Andrades

---

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2013

Apostasy of the religious orders

The following report is from the website of the sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery. They wrongly assume that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so they reject the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.

 

However they are correct in affirming that outside the church there is no salvation.However they are not aware that Vatican Council II (AG 7) is in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as they affirm it. They wrongly assume that LG 16,LG 8 etc refer to explicit cases known in the present times.So they believe that the Council contradicts the Catholic Church's traditional treaching on other religions and Christian communties and churches.

 

They are correct in assuming however that  Catholics, reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus including religious.However the MHFM is not aware that they reject the dogma since they,also like the MHFM,assume there are known exceptions in the present times, an error being made by Pope Francis,  Catholic religious communities and traditionalists who are not sedevacantists.

 

With the error of the visible dead who are exceptions to the dogma on salvation not being checked all these years the pendulum has swung in the extreme direction, it can be seen from some of the statements of religious communities.

 

I accept Pope Francis as my pope and hope that the heretical rejection of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14),which is agreement with the dogma  and the Catechism of the Catholic Church(846) which says all need to enter the Church 'as  through a door', will be corrected in future.

It is important to note that Mother Teresa was faithful to Jesus and the Church. However the interpretation on other religions, as reported here, is held by Missionaries of Charity superiors, men and women and so now they have made the fourth vow optional in their community. The fourth vow which Mother Teresa enshrined in the community was Fidelity to the Magisterium.It is no more obligatory for an MC Sister or Priest to make this vow.

Also novices are taught that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known exceptions to the need for every one to convert into the Church. So LG 16 contradicts AG 7. This is being described as a 'mystery' which Catholic novices have to accept to enter the MC community in Rome at their Religious House of Formation.

-Lionel Andrades

Apostasy of the religious orders

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/32_Religiousorders.pdf

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/10/benedictine-bishops-like-all-other.html

_________________________

APRIL 8, 2021

Michael and Peter Dimond at the Most Holy Family Monastery, USA now know that they have made a major mistake on Vatican Council II

 

 

E-Exchanges on various issues

 

*This section of our website (which is updated daily) contains some less formal – and short – e-mail exchanges that we’ve had which we feel may be of value to our readers.  We will include those portions of the exchanges we deem relevant and valuable.  We often add bolding and underlining which are not necessarily that of the other party.  This section also frequently includes, not only e-exchanges we have, but also our notes, updates and comments.  Section containing some important recent posts.*

 

New Video Posted

 

John Paul II Taught That The Gospel Is To Believe In Yourself

 

MHFM: Among other things, this video covers John Paul II's shocking exegesis of the one "from above", the description Jesus used for Himself in John 8:23.

 

Times

 

Watch People Get Arrested For Not Wearing A Mask

 

Dark times indeed.

 

MacDonald

 

First

 

Watch People Get Arrested For Not Wearing A Mask

 

First it’s for not wearing a mask, then it will be for not being vaccinated...

 

Danster

 

New Video Posted

 

Watch People Get Arrested For Not Wearing A Mask

 

To convert

 

Hello, my name is Daniel and I live in Portland, Oregon. I've read the Penny catechism and have watched a lot of your videos. I think I'm fully convinced of the Catholic faith and wish to convert…

 

Watched

 

Thomistic Basics (Act & Potency) Refute A Heretic On The Incarnation

 

Glad that I watched this video, it gives an excellent explanation…

 

A C

 

Information

 

The Best Argument Against "Baptism of Desire"

 

A lot of excellent information! A lot of interesting information!

 

Reggie Johnson

https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/E-Exchanges.php?utm_source=WPhp&utm_medium=Recent&utm_campaign=Theme2020

Day 7 - Divine Mercy Novena | 2021

Repost : The Boston Heresy Case refers historic magisterial heresy in the Catholic Church

 

APRIL 17, 2017

The Boston Heresy Case refers to historic magisterial heresy in the Catholic Church : practical consequences in the archdiocese of Palermo, Italy

https://www.academia.edu/2703679/Salvation_Outside_the_Church_Leonard_Feeney_and_the_Boston_Heresy_Case        

Here is an Interesting but theologically flawed article  by Tracy Kline written for the leftist Boston College which discriminates on the basis of religion, especially if you are a practicing Catholic.

She assumes that Fr. Leonard Feeney was in heresy instead of Archbishop Cushing, the Jesuits and the magisterium in Rome.

She does not address the fundamental theological issue - the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are always invisible cases and so they never ever were relevant or exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). As Chris Ferrara says- there can be no practical exceptions to EENS. Zero cases of something are not exceptions to EENS said John Martignoni. Baptism of desire (BOD) and invincible ignorance (I.I) are not exceptions to EENS says the present Vice Rector and former Dean of Theology at the University of St. Anselm Rome, Fr. Stefano Visintin osb.

Boston College was teaching unorthodoxy and heresy .This is obvious. One does not have to be a theologian to note it.It is common sense. There are no known cases of the baptism of desire on earth.

I think the writer understands the theological implications.But she is biased towards Boston College.The Left has controlled the narrative on Fr. Leonard Feeney and the Boston Heresy of the Archbishop of Boston.Even the traditionalists have accepted it, with the lead being given by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

Here are extracts from her article, which is biased towards the Jewish Left, with my comments.-L.A

 

Tracey Kline

Salvation Outside the Church: Leonard Feeney and The Boston Heresy Case

 

On April 13, 1949, Boston College President William L. Keleher discharged four faculty members in what was to become one of the university‟s most notorious controversies.Fakhri Maluf, James Walsh, Charles Ewaski, and David Supple, all educators at Boston College and members of a local Catholic Center, had accused the university of heretical teaching and refused to retract the charge.

Lionel: The Boston College President William L. Keleher refused to accept the centuries old interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, outside the Church there are no exceptions.There are no known exceptions for us human beings, there can be no known exceptions.

_______________________

 
 

 Affirming that Catholicism was the one, true Church, they rejected Boston College‟s stance that a man could effect his own salvation without being one of its members  –and continually spoke, according to Keleher, “in class and out of class on matters contrary to the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church.”

Lionel:This would have been heresy and an innovation in the Church of the past. So they  objected.

______________________

1

Saint Benedict Center, the group to which these men belonged, was a local organization in Cambridge, Massachusetts, led by Rev. Leonard Feeney. Feeney, a former Boston College professor who had gained considerable prestige as a writer, vigorously supported the ousted Boston College educators and appealed to Rome to sustain their doctrinal views. The Center‟s ensuing controversy with the Catholic Church soon captured national attention, giving rise to what has been popularly designated the Boston Heresy Case.

Lionel: The secular media supported the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing and the President of Boston College, William L. Keleher  . The media criticized Fr. Leonard Feeney for his traiditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.The Jewish Left newspapers stated that the Catholic Church had changed its teachings on salvation. The Boston Heresy now referred to the traditional teaching on salvation held by Fr. Leonard Feeney and the four dismissed professors of  Boston College. The orthodox position was made heretical.The ecclesiastical Masons had struck in a big way. They had eliminated the dogma and stopped Fr. Leonard Feeney's preaching.

________________________

The Boston Heresy case constituted a decisive theological moment within the twentieth century, through which the Catholic Church asserted its stance on its controversial extra ecclesiam nulla salus doctrine. Leonard Feeney and his followers at Saint BenedictCenter utilized this phrase to justify exclusivist ideologies strictly interpreting it to affirm that only baptized Catholics could achieve salvation. Distressed by the growing secularization of American institutions and liberalizing trends throughout Catholicism,

Lionel: The Holy Office and the ecclesiastics at Boston chose a new theology for the Catholic Church in which invisible cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance were assumed 1) to exclude the baptism of water in the Church 2) and were physically visible and personally known in specific cases, for them to be exceptions to the tradtiional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

 

________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 Kline 2

Feeney condemned Boston College for perpetuating what he deemed heretical ideas

namely, that salvation could be achieved outside the Church.

Lionel: 'That salvation could be achieved outside' was  heretical and it would contradict the dogma EENS.It would contradict Jesus' teaching in the Bible (John 3:5, Mark 16:16).It would also contradict numerous saints including St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St.Frqancis Xavier, St.Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Theresa of Avila etc.

_______________________________________

 

 

 The highly publicized doctrinal controversy this incited forced the Church to clarify its stance on salvation for non-Catholics while ultimately rendering Feeney and his Center to historical infamy.

Lionel: In un-precedented magisterial heresy the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontiticate of Pope Pius XII affimed invisible cases of the baptism of desire etc were visible exceptions to all needing to enter the Church to avoid the fires of Hell.Ghosts were visible! People in Heaven were visible on earth! This was a new doctrine based on an irrational premise(visible baptism of desire).This was magisterial irrationality which was included in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14).The new theology was based on  this philosophical error(invisible cases are visible).This  philosophical error is all over Vatican Council II.It could seem amusing for someone who tracks it.

_______________________________________

 

 
Its historical roots,cultural impetuses, and lasting impacts on Catholic doctrine will here be examined, supplemented by exploration of the growth and ultimate division of Saint Benedict Center in

conjunction with Leonard Feeney‟s personal background and eventual reconciliation with the Catholic Church.

Lionel: The irrationality which was the basis of a new theology is no where discussed in this article by Tracy Kline.The writer does not have a clue. In this sense this article is limited and flawed.

_______________________________________

 

The Latin phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been subject to extensive

controversy throughout the centuries. Literally meaning, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” this Catholic axiom was coined by Cyprian of Carthage in his On the Unity of the Church

 

(251). Cyprian argued that Jesus‟ proclamation that “Unless you eat the flesh of theSon of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53) implied that only thosewho received the Catholic sacraments would be saved. Popes throughout the Middle Ages,most notably Innocent III in 1215 and Boniface VIII in 1302, reaffirmed this interpretation, avowing that salvation required a sacramental connection to the Catholic Church.

Lionel: Agreed.

___________________________________________

 

Kline 7

 

Feeney, along with many Catholic priests at the time,staunchly resisted modernist thinking and what he perceived to be the liberalization of Catholic doctrine. When ordained in 1938, he was required to take an  Oath Against  Modernism as proscribed by Pope Pius X, which stated: “

I wholly and entirely reject the falseinvention of the evolution of dogmas, whereby they pass from one meaning to a meaningother than that formerly held by the Church.”

Lionel: In March 2016 Pope Benedict XVI in an interview in the daily Avvenire stated that EENS was no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries. He said that the dogma had evolved with Vatican Council II. He meant that Vatican Council II ( Cushingism) assumed there are visilble and known exceptions to the dogma EENS. So for him there is salvation outside the Church. LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22, unlike for me, would refer to physically visible and known cases for Pope Benedict. This is modernism.He contradicts the Oath Against Modernism and the same modernism is supported by the Society of St. Pius X and sedevacantist bishops and priests who have had their formation under Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

The Oath Against Modernism is now meaningless. Even Bishop Athanasiius Schneider who has called for a Syllabus of Errors on Vatican Council II, interprets Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism and is a modernist.

__________________________________________

 

Kline 10

 

In April 1949, President Keleher asked Maluf, Walsh, Ewaskio, and Supple to retracttheir unorthodoxy charges or be dismissed from the university. The men refused, claimingthat college authorities were violating their consciences as teachers. They were, in turn,summarily terminated. Keleher explained his rationale for the dismissal, affirming, “They had had been cautioned by me and others in authority here to stay within their own field and leave theology to those who were adequately and competently prepared.” Citing their continued defiance, Keleher called their doctrine “erroneous” and avowed that it “could not  be tolerated at Boston College.”

Lionel: Maluf, Walsh, Ewaskio, and Supple were interpretating extra ecclesiam nulla salus without assuming the baptism of desire was always visible. It was physically invisible for them.

 President Keleher, Cardinal Cushing, the Jesuits at Boston and the cardinals in Rome were interpretating extra ecclesiam nulla salus assuming that the baptism of desire was always physically visible and it was not invisible. It was an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So they concluded that there was salvation outside the Church.

This problem continues even today in the Church. Extra ecclesam nulla salus and Vatican Council II can be interpreted with the baptism of desire being considered visible or invisible and there will be two different conclusions. One of them has to be modernism. 

Today priest- professors at pontifical universities in Rome. who do not choose the modernistic interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus would be fired.

_____________________________________________________

 

Kline 12

 

On April 21, 1949, the Roman Catholic Church issued a new Catechism that asserted its stance on the extra ecclesiam axiom. A revision of the Baltimore Catechism, which was first published in 1880 and had become standard in nearly every American dioceses, the revised Catechism “state[d] that persons may be saved outside Catholicism ,if they do not know that it is the true church‟ and if they ,make use of the graces God gives them.‟”

The extra ecclesiam nulla salus doctrine, it affirmed, “only applies to those who through their own grave fault do not know that the Catholic Church is the true church or, knowing it,refuse to join it.”

The revision, prepared by the Confraternity of Christian Dogma, clearly refuted Feeney‟s views, effectively squelching the Center‟s optimism for Vatican support. 

Lionel: This was the new doctrine.It was based on known cases of being saved in invincible ignorance. Based on a philosophical error a new theology was created.It  rejected  the dogma EENS. This was heresy. It was also material schism by the Americanists.

How can we know of someone on earth saved without the baptism of water but with invincible ignorance? No one can know of any such case.How can we physically see people in Heaven or on earth saved in invincible ignorance ? So how can being saved in invincible ignorance be relevant to the interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, according to Fr. Leonard Feeney?

Yet this flawed reasoning would be repeated in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and then in Vatican Council II.The Masons had decided that the dogma must go, one way or another.

_______________________________________________

Kline 14
More substantively, the Center sent a document to Pope Pius XII on September 24, 1952 containing a two-pronged attack.“The first prong charged Archbishop Cushing with heresy for permitting the dissemination of the teaching that there is salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church. The second prong attacked the validity of the 8 August 1949 Protocol.

Lionel: There could be no known salvation outside the Church for us human beings.In 1949 no one knew of any one saved outside the Church. In 1952 no one could have known of someone saved without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, Vatican Council II). So the 1949 Protocal was objectively flawed. We cannot see ghosts who are exceptions to all needing to enter the Church for salvation.

We cannot theorize that someone in the past could be an exception to the dogma EENS in the present times.

We cannot say that a possibility in the past means that there is an actual case in the present times, there is an actual exception to the dogma for example in 2017.

There never were and nor are any exceptions. The 1949 Protocal made a factual error.

_________________________________________

  Kline 16

  

Shmaruk  explains, “„Fr. Feeney‟s excommunication had nothing at all to do with the theological issue of salvation,‟ but  with disobedience, the penalty „after twenty-five yearshad served its purpose and was no longer necessary or, indeed, helpful in finding a solutionto the Church s problem with Leonard Feeney

Lionel: Theology was the fundamental issue. Fr: Shmaruk accepted the new Cushingite theology.It was based on invisible cases without the baptism of water being visible exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS. This was the new official theology of the Church.It was magisterial. It was accepted by Rome.

____________________________________________

 

Kline 16

The removal of Feeney‟s censures, they furthermore agreed, would be publicly announced only after his death thereby allowing Feeney to live in peace within his community to the end of his days.

Lionel: It shows how devious was the ecclesiastical Masonry at that time. They did not want the people to know that based on an irrationality they had eliminated the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It was for some 19 years that they did not lift the excommunication. Throughout Vatican Council II they let the Council Fathers and the world believe that there was a new reasoning on salvation. Hypothetical cases were made relevant and exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So Vatican Council II in a kind of comedy mentions LG 16, LG 8,Na 2, UR 3, GS 22 as if they are not speculative but actual, concrete examples of salvation outside the Church.

_____________________________________________

 

Kline 16

 

Feeney‟s reconciliation with the Catholic Church was determined solely on grounds of pastoral concern. The Church lifted Feeney‟s excommunication without requiring any

penance or statement of wrongdoing, in turn leaving the doctrinal issue untouched.

Lionel: The new doctrines on salvation based on hypothetical cases being visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus was now the official teaching of the Church. Cardinal Ratzinger as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would accept it.

____________________________________________

 

 

 

.The Feeney controversy indeed prompted the Church to clarify its stance on the

extraecclesiam nulla salus doctrine. On August 8, 1949, the Holy Office issued Suprema haec Sacra which, approved by Pope Pius XII, rejected Feeney‟s strict interpretation of the axiom.

It stated:

That one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it isnecessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is incatechumens; but when a person is involved in invincibleignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because itis included in that good disposition of soul whereby a personwishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

Lionel: 'That one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member,' is heresy. It is a reasoning  based  irrationality.The Letter assumes  visible cases of the baptism of desire are examples of  known salvation outside the Church.We now have fantasy theology in the Church, the dead-man-walking-and-visible theory.

__________________________________

 

Kline 17

The document denounced Karam‟s “Liberal Theology and Salvation” as contrary to Catholic

teaching and personally censured Fr. Feeney, setting the stage for the Ecumenical Movementin the Catholic Church as well as Vatican Council II.

Lionel: Since there were personally known cases of people saved outside the Church for the magisterium there could now be the Anonymous Christian Theory of Rahner and Ratzinger. There were known cases of Protestants and other Christians saved outside the Church for the magisterium so the International Theological Commission in one of its papers mentions a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. It was approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and the present secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Luiz Ladaria s.j.
____________________________

Zero cases of something are not exceptions to the dogma EENS said the apologist John Martignoni. But for Ratzinger and Ladaria there were no zero cases. There are no practical exceptions to the dogma EENS says Chris Ferrara. But for the magisterium there were. The baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus said Fr. Stefano Visintin osb. He is the present Vice Rector and former Dean of Theology at the University of St. Anselm Rome.So all is not lost in the Church.

___________________________________

 

Kline 18

The 1962 Second Vatican Council confirmed the extra ecclesiam principle.

 Lumen Gentium, its document on the Church promulgated on November 21, 1964 by Pope Paul VI, articulated,“Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, [the Council] teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. . . . Whosoever,therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse toenter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

Lionel:

Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, [the Council] teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. . . . Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse toenter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

The passage in blue is traditional EENS.It would be the interpretation of the four suspended professors at Boston College.The passage in red refers to the innovation in the Church based on known cases of salvation outside the Church, specifically, in invincible ignorance.

I call the passage in blue Feeneyism and the passage in red Cushingism.

____________________

 

The majority of Catholics interpreted this statement as affirming that those who were not in a position to recognize the necessity of believing in Christ or joining the Catholic Church may be saved, as long as they were positively related to Christ and the Church.

Lionel: This is the new theology, it is Cushingism. It's foundation is -hypothetical cases are exceptions to the dogma EENS.

However the same passage in red can be re-interpreted.It can be converted into Feeneyism.This gives us hope for the future.

We simply have to be aware that the passage in red refers to a hypothetical case. So it is not an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS, the passage in blue.So there are no exceptions mentioned in Lumen Gentium or elsewhere in Vatican Council II, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the 16th century missionaries for example.

______________________________

 

Though this remains the prevailing view, the Church has yet to formulate a view on the extra ecclesiam principle with final clarity or precision.

Lionel: The Church has to identify Cushingism as being irrational, non traditional and heretical it is an innovation in the Church based on a philosophical error.

_________________________________

The Boston Heresy of the magisterium has practical consequences today. For example in Palermo, Italy the Archbishop is calling for unity based on heresy. He interprets Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism and expects the whole diocese to do the same.

.

 

-Lionel Andrades




January 14, 2017

Two popes irrational and in heresy : Archbishop Gullickson, Fr.Visintin osb correcthttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/01/two-popes-irrational-and-in-heresy.html

__________________________________________________

OCTOBER 6, 2012

ARCHBISHOP GERHARD MULLER CHOOSES A HERETICAL INTERPRETATION OF LUMEN GENTIUM 14 WHICH IS A BREAK FROM TRADITION    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/10/archbishop-gerhard-muller-chooses.html

AUGUST 11, 2012

THE BOSTON HERESY OF THE ARCHBISHOP INFLUENCED VATICAN COUNCIL II AND THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-boston-heresy-of-archbishop-of.html