If Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise then the Council becomes Traditional and he supports Tradition and the Catholic Church becomes Traditional

 If Pope Francis pinterprets Vc2 with the Rational Premise then the Council becomes Traditional and he supports Tradition, and the Church becomes Traditional.- Lionel Andrades 

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

___________________

Gesù Ti veneriamo con tutto il cuore, la Tua Croce è la nostra porta del cielo e il segno d'Amore

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

 

 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

 

 

 

 

From the blog The Eponymous Flower: Vatican Excommunicates Members of the "Bambinello of Gallinaro"Community

  

 

Michael Bonici:
 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

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/my-approach-apologetics.html

SSPX in its theological and philosophical formation is using the false premise and conclusion which is the basis of the new theology

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/sspx-in-its-theological-and.htmlDelete

-Lionel Andrades

 

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.it/2016/06/cdf-community-is-contrary-to-catholic.html#comment-form

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.

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.

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

 

So Vatican Council II says :

'whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved'(Lumen Gentium 14) and 'all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching'(Ad Gentes 7).

 

But the Letter (1949) made a mistake.

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

 

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 long.- Letter of the Holy Office 1949

 

' the effects, necessary for one to be saved...can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.

If someone is saved only in desire and longing he is a non existent case for us, he does not exist in our reality, he is a zero case. So how could the Letter state'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'? It is always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member and we do not know anyone saved only with longing and desire.

We don't know any one who will be saved with 'the baptism of desire'.

There are no concrete cases on earth of someone with only and longing.These cases can only be known to God.

There are no known cases of someone on earth saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water.

There are no such cases visible in 2016. We cannot know or not know any such case.They would only be known to God.

So how could the Letter(1949) say, 'Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church...'.The Letter is here referring to a hypothetical case. It is a theoretical case.It is not  someone known in real life. O.K. No one will be saved who knowing the Church...but what has this to do with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) which says all need faith and baptism for salvation ?.Zero-cases, invisible cases are not exceptions or relevant to the dogma.

 So the Letter made a mistake here. It assumed these cases were personally known and so were relevant to the dogma EENS. So it says 'Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing...'

Then the Letter concludes, '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.'

'Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member...' is  a denial of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

It is a denial with a non existing case in our reality,, someone whom it refers to as ' united to her by desire and longing'. This is a theoretical case. How can a theoretical case be an exception to all needing to formally enter the Church?

So it is irrationality when the Letter states,'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.'

It is the denial of a defined dogma with an irrationality. This is heresy. It is magisterial heresy.

It was an objective error.It is a fact of life that we cannot see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water.

The same error was placed in Vatican Council II.

'whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved'(Lumen Gentium 14) and 'all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching'(Ad Gentes 7).

Yes 'all must be converted to Him' and not only those who 'know' or are 'made known by the Church's preaching'.

Vatican Council II refers to those who 'know' because the Letter (1949) assumed there were known people saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water. It assumed there were known people saved with 'longing and desire', with what the Baltimore Catechism calls 'the baptism of desire'. It infers that the baptism of desire excludes the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.This is how it is generally interpreted.  It assumed that 'when a person is involved in invincible ignorance' this is a personally known case. Then it was inferred that this 'unknown' case was a known exception to the dogma EENS. The Letter criticizes Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center for not accepting these 'unknown' cases as explicit exceptions to their traditional interpretation of EENS. The magisterium was saying they could see these exceptions on earth and wanted the St.Benedict Center to say the same.

They were so sure of themself. They incorporated this erroneous teaching in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14).

They effectively got rid of the dogma EENS and brought a new doctrine into the Catholic Church.Until today, most Catholics have not noticed this.

-Lionel Andrades

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

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/the-baltimore-catechism-and-catechism.html

 

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.

Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 saying'whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved'(LG 14) and 'all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching'(AG 7)  was a clear doctrinal error from the Letter (1949). It was not just the placing of a hypothetical passage, near an orthodox teaching,to make it appear as an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( EENS).

Go back to the Letter and read it.You will see being saved in invincible ignorance refers to persons saved without the baptism of water.

Reason it out. If they are saved with the baptism of water in the Catholic Church they would have to be personally known. They would have to be visible.Invisible cases cannot be exceptions to EENS.So the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston  (1949) infers  there are known, visible cases of non Catholics saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church .

This was the error.

Since there are (allegedly) known cases of non Catholics saved without 'faith and baptism', but in invincible ignorance of the Gospel ,through no fault of their own, not every one needs to enter the Catholic Church, is the conclusion.There is salvation outside the Church. Every one now does not need to be a 'card carrying member' of the Catholic Church, to avoid Hell.

So, Vatican Council II says 'whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved'(LG 14) and 'all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching'(AG 7). We have a new doctrine and it is also supported by Cardinal Muller.

Cardinal Muller when asked about  the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, told Edward Pentin 'there has been a development of all that was said in the Church, beginning with St. Cyprian, one of the Fathers of the Church, in the 3^rd century. Again, the perspective is different between then and now. In the 3^rd century, some Christian groups wanted to be outside the Church, and what St. Cyprian said is that without the Church, a Christian cannot be saved. The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” He who is aware of the presence of revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly and, not only in his conscience, in his heart, to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him. But we cannot say that those who are inculpably ignorant of this truth are necessarily condemned for that reason. We must hope that those who do not belong to the Church through no fault of their own, but who follow the dictates of their God-given conscience, will be saved by Jesus Christ whom they do not yet know. Every person has the right to act according to his or her own conscience...' 1

 

So we have identified the 1949 magisterial error and the wrong inference in Vatican Council II from the irrational and non traditional Letter.

So we simply avoid the wrong inference. We say there are no known cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water.This is objective. There are no known exceptions to EENS.There is no known case of someone saved outside the Church, without 'faith and baptism'.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. 

The new theology which is magisterial, is based on the error in the Letter(1949) and Vatican Council II.

-Lionel Andrades 

 

1

 

Cardinal Muller's doctrinal error placed on the Vatican website!

INTERVIEW WITH H.E. ARCHBISHOP GERHARD LUDWIG MÜLLER

13 September 2012

National Catholic Register / The Catholic Herald

Edward Pentin:

But do you feel there’s been a weakening of the Church’s teaching because of this underlying confusion of terminology. One example sometimes cited is that the teaching of “no salvation outside the Church” seems to have become less prominent. Can that be attributed to the Council in your view?

Cardinal Gerhard Muller:

That has been discussed, but here too there has been a development of all that was said in the Church, beginning with St. Cyprian, one of the Fathers of the Church, in the 3^rd century. Again, the perspective is different between then and now. In the 3^rd century, some Christian groups wanted to be outside the Church, and what St. Cyprian said is that without the Church, a Christian cannot be saved. The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” He who is aware of the presence of revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly and, not only in his conscience, in his heart, to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him. But we cannot say that those who are inculpably ignorantof this truth are necessarily condemned for that reason. We must hope that those who do not belong to the Church through no fault of their own, but who follow the dictates of their God-given conscience, will be saved by Jesus Christ whom they do not yet know. Every person has the right to act according to his or her own conscience. However, if a Catholic says today: “I am going to put myself outside the Church,” we would have to respond that without the Church, that person is in danger of losing salvation. Therefore we must always examine the context of these statements. The problem that many people have is that they are linking statements of doctrine from different centuries and different contexts – and this cannot be done rationally without a hermeneutic of interpretation. We need a theological hermeneutic for an authentic interpretation, but interpretation does not change the content of the teaching.

Lionel:

Cardinal Muller has denied the centuries old interpretation of the dogma, the Feeneyite version, what the secular media calls ' the rigorist interpretation' of the dogma.He has supported the Marchetti Letter of the Holy Office 1949.Cardinal Marchetti suggested that being saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance were exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.It implied that these cases were personally known and visible to be exceptions. This was an objective error. How can the deceased who are now in Heaven be visible on earth to be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation ?.They would have to be visible for Cardinal Marchetti, for them, to be objective exceptions.This factual error was supporterd by Cardinal Richard Cushing , the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuit community there. They inserted the confusion in Vatican Council II. (AG 7,LG 14).

So Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved..' He 'who is aware'.But he who is aware or in inculpable ignorance is known only to God.So what has this to do with the Feeneyite version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus? We cannot meet someone who has been saved or will be saved without the baptism of water in 2015!

For Cardinal Gerhard Muller we can! So he considers this 'a development' of the dogma.The dogma has known and visible exceptions as Cardinal Marchetti believed.

'But we cannot say that those who are inculpably ignorant of this truth are necessarily condemned for that reason.'

Lionel:

What has this to do with the Feeneyite version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Obviously Cardinal Gerhard Muller is referring to a hypothetical case.How can hypothetical cases be defacto exceptions to all needing ' faith and baptism'(AG 7) for salvation ?

Every person has the right to act according to his or her own conscience.

Lionel:

Again, why mention this with respect to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? We do not know of any one saved by acting according to his or her conscience and who did not need the baptism of water in the present times.So how is following one's conscience(LG 16) an exception to the traditional 'rigorist'interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. The Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican once again assumes that these cases are objectively known to us.Since they are explicit for him they are exceptions to the dogma.This is irrational.

We need a theological hermeneutic for an authentic interpretation

Lionel:

Cardinal Gerhard Muller first assumes that the dead-saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance and who are in Heaven are visible to us ( false proposition). He then concludes that these visble-dead are explicit exceptions to Fr.Leonard Feeney and the traditional interpretation of the dogma ( false conclusion). He then concludes that there is known salvation outside the Catholic Church and all do not need to defacto become formal members of the Church to avoid Hell.This is a new theology based on an irrational premise.It is also a break with Tradition, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of Pope Pius XII etc.

but interpretation does not change the content of the teaching.

Lionel:

True interpretation must not change the content of the teaching but obviously he is not promoting the Feeneyite version of the dogma.He is a Cushingite.For him there are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So the content of the teaching has been changed.

Where are these explicit exceptions? In the Vatican ? Rome ? Can he give us their names and surnames?

the perspective is different between then and now

Lionel:

Yes. Since he like Cardinal Francesco Marchetti-Selvaggiani and Cardinal Richard Cushing is using a false premise with a false conclusion to change the meaning of the dogma.

-Lionel Andrades

June 5, 2013

Archbishop Gerhard Muller was using the false premise : here is the proof!

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/06/archbishop-gerhard-muller-was-using.html

ARCHBISHOP GERHARD MULLER ASSUMES THAT THE DEAD WHO ARE SAVED ARE VISIBLE ON EARTH AND SO EVERY ONE DOES NOT NEED TO ENTER THE CHURCH:NCR interview

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/archbishop-gerhard-muller-assumes-that.html#links

http://edwardpentin.co.uk/blog/archive/

No denial from Edward Pentin

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/no-denial-from-edward-pentin.html

 

 

_______________________

 

 

So much of Vatican Council II is based on the factual error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 when it inferred that implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were visible to us in real life

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/so-much-of-vatican-council-ii-is-based.html

 

MONDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2015

How can the bishops abjure heresy and still use Cushingism as a theology ? The result is heretical

Anonymous said...

I am of the opinion if one of these valid bishop's would renounce the heresy of ecumenism,made public abjoration of heresy,then consecrated a valid priest in the pre-June 1968 Rite of Holy Orders,it would be one more necessary line of bishop's administering valid Holy Orders and valid Sacraments.The priest being consecrated would have to have been ordained in traditional rite by valid bishop ordained/consecrated in pre-June 1968 rite of holy orders.

 

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.
___________________

 

made public abjoration of heresy,

Lionel:
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.

With Cushingism they are saying they believe in three known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins instead of one. This is heresy, it it changing the Nicene Creed.

With Cushingism they interpret Lumen Gentium 16 as referring to an explicit case. So Vatican Council II becomes a break with Tradition. With  Feeneyism LG 16 is not explicit and so Vatican Council II is not a break with Tradition.

With Feeneyism there are no exceptions to the Nicene Creed's ' I believe in one baptism for the  forgiveness of sin'.

The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus does not have any exceptions with the theology of Feeneyism.

So presently these bishops are offering Mass with heresy.
-Lionel Andrades

 

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6312447&postID=7601607919486718887&page=1&token=1450685955617

 

 

 https://youtu.be/ZLeomOG3bN8

  

Fr. Joseph Kramer and the FSSP priests use heretical Cushingism as a theology. So they indirectly accept the new ecumenism, the new relations with the Jews and other non Catholics and Vatican Council II being a break with Tradition.They have rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla with Cushingism and assume there are  exceptions  to the dogma with the baptism of desire etc.

 

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.

They are unaware of the Magisterial Heresy, which is pro-Left.The contemporary Magisterium of the Catholic Church has rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) .They also interpret Vatican Council II as a break with EENS.

For the Catholic political organisations Forza Nuova and Militia Christi, there is only one known interpretation of Vatican Council II. It is with Cushingism. They are unaware that Vatican Council II can be interpretated in agreement with the strict interpretation.There is a choice.
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.

Presently the political Left and the Catholic Magisterium state that all do not need to convert and they cite Vatican Council II. This is only a political slogan. Since the Council text is pro- Feeneyism while the Curia members are Cushingites.Vatican Council II is traditional on exclusive salvation in the Church Church. It affirms the old ecclesiology.

Why do Forza Nuova and Militia Christi have to accept the leftist model of Vatican Council II ?

According to Vatican Council II all Muslims need to convert with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14) to go to Heaven.We do not know of any exception in 2015. According to Vatican Council II those who know about Jesus and the Church and yet do not enter are oriented to Hell. The Muslim prophet and his companions knew about the Church but chose not to enter.According to Vatican Council II  and the perennial Magisterium they were all oriented to Hell.

Similarly the Jewish Left leaders today need 'faith and baptism' for salvation. They are educated and they 'know ' about the Jewish Messiah.The Church which he founded is a continuation of the Jewish religion. They do not convert and so are oriented to Hell according to Vatican Council II.

Militia Christi and Forza Nuova need to proclaim this and watch how the Vatican Curia scramble for citations which are not there in Vatican Council II.

-Lionel Andrades


 

 

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

 

_______________________________

 

From Musings of a Pertinacious Papist, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus What does it mean?

Tradical
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.

-Lionel Andrades


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

All the speakers at the Fatima Mini Conference with talks and workshop organised by Our Lady’s Army of Advocates in Chicago this week ( Nov.14-16,2014) are expected to use an irrational inference in the interpetation of Vatican Council II. So the Council will be projected as a break with Tradition when really it is the opposite.
http://www.fatima.org/pdf/ChicagoHyatt.pdf

Fr.Nicholas Gruner has only to interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and the Council becomes traditional
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/frnicholas-gruner-has-only-to-interpret.html

Why did Fr.Nicholas Gruner not just tell the pope that there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/why-did-frnicholas-gruner-not-just-tell.html

-Lionel Andrades

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

The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) could announce that they accept Vatican Council II,without the premise( see blue section) and call upon Bishop Marcello Semeraro,the bishop of Albano, to do the same ( see red section). Then the SSPX announces that after the bishop of Albano has accepted Vatican Council without the premise( blue section) they will accept the Council as such( see purple section).

The Society of St.Pius X accepts extra ecclesiam nulla salus without any exceptions as mentioned in the General Chapter Statement 2012 so they endorse Vatican Council II without the irrational premise.

 

SSPX Accepts

 

1.We  (SSPX) accept Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which says all need faith and baptism for salvation and so affirms the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. We call upon Bishop Marcello Semeraro, the Bishop of Albano to do the same. Affirm Vatican Council II.
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.

 

SSPX conditions for the Bishop of Albano.

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.

1.Please accept Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which says all need faith and baptism for salvation and so affirms the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

2.Please accept Vatican Council II in which LG 8,LG 14, LG 16,NA 2,UR 3 are only possibilities and do not refer to explicit exceptions to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.

Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. Vatican Council II indicates all Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and others need to convert into the Church, with faith and baptism, for salvation.
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.

 

The SSPX announces that since the Bishop of Albano has accepted Vatican Council II in agreement with the interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, they also accept this version.

Since the bishop interprets extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Church Councils, popes and saints and not according to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and Cardinal Richard Cushing, this is acceptable to them.

Since the Bishop of Albano interprets Vatican Council II according to Tradition i.e according to Feeneyism and not Cushingism; according to the hermeneutic of continuity and not rupture, they accept Vatican Council II without the premise and they reject Vatican Council II with the premise, which results in a break with Tradition.

Since all sides accept extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted over the centuries, there is no change in Church ecclesiology and the traditional teachings on other religions, Christian communities and religious liberty, in Vatican Council II.

 

-Lionel Andrades 

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014

The baptism of desire has nothing to do with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This was the Cushing-Jesuit con game

 

Christopher:
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.
__________________________________________________

 

Christopher:
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.
___________________________________________

 

Christopher:
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.

-Lionel Andrades
________________________________________________
http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/this-just-in/#comment-25005

SUNDAY, JUNE 29, 2014

You can witness a martyrdom but cannot say the person is a martyr and is in Heaven without the baptism of water

So, are you saying that it is impossible to ever witness a true martyrdom in the Name of Jesus Christ? At least to a moral certitude?

Lionel:

You can witness a martyrdom on earth but you cannot say that the person is declared a martyr and is in Heaven without the baptism of water.

You would not know.You cannot infer it.

 It would be known only to God.-Lionel Andrades

The Catechism of the Council of Trent is free of the error of assuming hypothetical cases are general exceptions to the traditional moral teachings of the Church: other catechisms have made a mistake http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/the-catechism-of-council-of-trent-is.html

The present two popes are heretical and non traditional since they interpret EENS and Vatican Council II with Cushingism. So Vatican Council II (Cushingite) emerges as a break with EENS ( Feeneyite).http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/the-present-two-popes-are-heretical-and.html