JUNE 9, 2016
I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) in agreement with Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14). EENS and Vatican Council II say all need to formally enter the Church for salvation ( with faith and baptism ).There are no exceptions
Lionel makes the category error of believing that his corrupt Neo-Scholastic syllogism actually has something to do with God, Christ, the Holy Spirit and the entire Mysterium Fidei.
Lionel:I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).I then affirm it in agreement with Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14). I say that EENS and Vatican Council II say all need to formally enter the Church for salvation ( with faith and baptism ).There are no exceptions. This is the general rule, this is the de fide teaching.
Then I say that I personally I do not know of any one saved with the baptism of desire or blood, with or without the baptism of water. So there are no known exceptions to the dogma for me in 2016.
The baptism of desire is a hypothetical case. For it to be an exception or relevant to EENS it would have to be explicit. Zero cases of something are not exceptions to EENS says the apologist John Martignoni.
So the bottom line is that there is no known salvation outside the Church for me. I cannot meet someone saved without the baptism of water.This is physically impossible and so no one in the past could also have known of a case of someone saved outside the Church.
So this is my basic position. It is traditional with no irrational theology.
I at least know my Catholic Faith and can give an account of it on the issue of salvation.Tancred, instead when asked, indicates he has to confirm his position with Brother Andre Marie MICM,Prior, St. Benedict Center, N.H, USA.My Approach
SSPX in its theological and philosophical formation is using the false premise and conclusion which is the basis of the new theology
WE HAVE TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF
VATICAN COUNCIL II : YOURS AND MINE
Lionel Andrades
Catholic lay man in Rome. Writer on the discovery of the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is interpreted with the false premise and the other without it. One is Magisterial and the other, the common one, is non Magisterial.How can the Holy Spirit make an objective mistake ? So it is human error and not the Magisterium.
Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms. There can be two interpretations.Catholics must choose the rational option.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, nontraditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission)
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
Twitter : @LionelAndrades1
___________________
SATURDAY, JANUARY 23, 2016
There is a factual error in Vatican Council II which has come from the Letter of the Holy Office and most Catholics have not noticied it
From the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
The Letter ( 1949) made a mistake.There is a mistake in Vatican Council II, too.It's an objective mistake. It's a doctrinal mistake.There are no known exceptions to the old ecclesiology on ecumenism and other religions
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/the-letter-1949-made-mistakethere-is.html
TheBaltimore Catechism and the Catechism of Pope Pius X brought an innovation in the Church which changed doctrine on salvation and mission: the error of the Americans at Baltimore and Boston
FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 2016
The Letter ( 1949) made a mistake.There is a mistake in Vatican Council II, too.It's an objective mistake. It's a doctrinal mistake.There are no known exceptions to the old ecclesiology on ecumenism and other religions.
MONDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2015
How can the bishops abjure heresy and still use Cushingism as a theology ? The result is heretical
I am of the opinion if one of these valid bishop's would renounce the heresy of ecumenism,
Lionel:
They all accept Cushingism as a theology. So they all indirectly, un-knowingly support a false ecumenism, the new ecumenism, which is based on the new theology.The new theology is based on the irrationality of Cushingism. It is based on a false premise and inference.
___________________
With Cushingism they are saying there are explicit exceptions to the de fide dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is heresy.So they may abjure heresy but they are still using Cushingism as a theology.The result is heretical.
-Lionel Andrades
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2015
Militia Christi and Forza Nuova are interpretating Vatican Council II with the pro-Left model.
Militia Christi and Forza Nuova and other Catholic political parties in Italy are interpretating Vatican Council II with the pro-Left model. They are using Cushingism instead of Feeneyism to interpret Vatican Council II.
If they reject the leftist model in the interpretation of Vatican Council II then there are political and social implications. The change comes with our Catholic religious beliefs.
Vatican Council II would then be in agreement with the 'perennial Magisterium' of the Church ( pre-1949) and they accept the perennial Magisterium.
This would be a rational interpretation of Vatican Council II while the leftist model would obviously be irrational and the stuff of fantasy.
Once they understand this they could then ask the Vatican and the Vicariates to affirm Vatican Council II in agreement with the strict interpretation of EENS. Since this is rational and non heretical.
They would be saying that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church teaches before and after Vatican Council II that all non Catholics need to convert formally into the Church with faith and baptism to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
MONDAY, DECEMBER 22, 2014
Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney, unless, you use Cushingism in the interpretation
I quickly checked the references that Catholicism made and noted that there appears to be a confirmation bias at work.
Lionel:
Usually the common bias with the SSPX and the St.Benedict Centers, is asuming hypothetical cases are defacto exceptions to the dogma.
This was the original error of the Holy Office and Cardinal Cushing. They inferred that the baptism of desire was known and visible in personal cases to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. In other words they could see the dead on earth.
_________________________________
...But this is all rather unnecessary.
The question appears to be simply: Can an unbaptized person achieve salvation?
Lionel:
Please be aware that this is a hypothetical question. So do not asume it refers to a defacto case and posit is against the dogma.
______________________________________
Well we know from the Council of Trent that a desire of baptism is also sufficient.
Lionel:
Again the Council of Trent only referred to implicit desire/baptism of desire. It did not state that these cases are known and visible to us, defacto, or that they are exceptions to the dogma. So please do not make this inference and then suggest that the Council of Trent say this.
_____________________________________
So fundamentally, someone who is not sacramentally baptised can achieve a state of grace and if this is maintained until death, they will be saved.
Lionel:
O.K. Hypothetically.
_____________________________________
Now, as to the matter of faith, taking up the thread above - St. Thomas makes distinctions between what degree of knowledge or 'content of Faith' is required for various classes of people.
For example a Bishop must have a higher content than a Priest, who must have a higher degree of explicit Faith than a lay-person. There are lesser requirements for the unbaptized.
Lionel:
Fine. But please do not infer, though, that these cases are personally known to us.
And if they are not personally known to us how can they be relevant to the dogma?
__________________________________
So at the extreme end, the minimum requirement for belief is as stated in the letter to Archbishop Cushing, which has basically been repeated in the Second Vatican Council.
Lionel:
Cushingism assumes that hypothetical cases are defacto exceptions to the dogma.
______________________________
In this case, since it is not at variance with how the Church has understood the dogma pre-conciliarly and even conciliarly, it is (imo) somewhat pointless to argue the point.Lionel:
Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney, unless, you are using Cushingism in the interpretation. Most people, liberals and traditionalists, are doing just this.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6312447&postID=3181870308829741462
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 2014
All the speakers at the Fatima Mini Conference at Chicago this week to use an irrational inference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II
http://www.fatima.org/pdf/ChicagoHyatt.pdf
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/frnicholas-gruner-has-only-to-interpret.html
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/why-did-frnicholas-gruner-not-just-tell.html
http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/fcchicago/#comment-27105
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2014
SSPX APPEAL TO BISHOP MARCELLO SEMERARO TO ENDORSE VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT THE FALSE PREMISE FOR AN AGREEMENT
2.We accept Vatican Council II in which LG 8,LG 14, LG 16,NA 2,UR 3 are possibilities and do not refer to explicit exceptions to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II. We call upon Bishop Semeraro to please do the same. Affirm Vatican Council II as we interpret it.
Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. Vatican Council II indicates all Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Mulsims and others need to convert into the Church, with faith and baptism, for salvation.
3.Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the SSPX, has said that the SSPX accepts Vatican Council II as a historical event and that he accepts 90% of the Council.
So an appeal is made to the Bishop of Albano to also affirm Vatican Council II in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( with no exceptions) as mentioned in the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012.The SSPX appeals to the Bishop of Albano to interpret and affirm Vatican Council II as they do ( see above) and set an example for all.
3.Acknowledge that Bishop Bernard Fellay has said that the SSPX accepts Vatican Council II as a historical event and that he approves of 90% of the Council.
Agreement
Bishop Marcello Semeraro announces that he affirms Vatican Council II in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( with no exceptions) as mentioned in the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 and is willing to interpret and affirm Vatican Council II as mentioned above setting an example for all.
After this announcement by the Bishop of Albano endorsing Vatican Council II without the premise the SSPX makes an announcement.
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014
The baptism of desire has nothing to do with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This was the Cushing-Jesuit con game
Baptism of Water: Under the issue of the Baptism of Water you have argued that a convert could go into the Catholic Church and receive the Baptism of Water, however the issue does not address what happens to the individual who suddenly dies at the Church door before even entering the Church.
Lionel:
What you have mentioned here is irrelevant to the dogma.The baptism of desire has nothing to do with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This was the Cushing-.Jesuit con game.
__________________________________________________
Suppose the Muhammadien you referenced, was the said victim of the event above? He arranged a date for his baptism, he preached to his friends and family and on that day he was to be baptised, he dropped down dead. The Feeneyist interpretation would say he was damned because he was not baptised.
Lionel:
The baptism of desire has nothing to do with the dogma.This person you refer to above does not exist in your and my reality.All this theology is irrelevant.
___________________________________________
That is what Baptism of Desire deals with, it does not in any way mean that Baptism of Water can suddenly be nullified and replaced. That is what the Holy Office 1949 was stressing in its condemnation of Feeyenism. You argue that the Holy Office 1949 proclamation is an exception to the Extra Ecclesiam Null Salus, but it is actually not contradictory, for the reason that it does not remove the necessity of Baptism, but it is in the context of Acts 17:23 prior to hearing St. Paul and the hypothetical death of a convert before being able to be baptised. You then stress that Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire are not contradictory to Feeneyism, but the Feeneyist’s argue that Baptism of Desire is erroneous given that if a person dies without Baptism of Water like above, they are condemned.
Lionel:
I do not know what you mean by Feeneyist. I am not using the apologetics of the St.Benedict Centers,USA. I am simply saying that for somethng to be an exeption it must exist. For someone to be an exception fundamentally he must exist. I am not into the familiar theology that can be read on the Internet.
________________________________________________
http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/this-just-in/#comment-25005
No comments:
Post a Comment