The SSPX denies the faith by projecting LG 8, 14 and 16, UR 3 etc as not being invisible but visible people saved outside the Church. This is political and convenient

 

ANGLICAN RECOLLECT PRIEST AFFIRMS THE CATHOLIC FAITH

An Anglican Recollect priest at the church Sant Ildefonso e Tomasso Villanova, in Rome recently said that he accepts Vatican Council II and it has the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition for him. So for him outside the Church there is no salvation (AG 7, LG 14, CCC 845,846 etc). Also the three youth with whom I spoke before the SSPX Mass yesterday morning also said that they affirm the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation. They accepted it. But the confusion for them, I noticed, as it is for the main line Novus Ordo church, here is on LG 8, 14 and 16. Are they visible or invisible cases? The answer determines if the theology is old or new.

CATHOLIC YOUTH AT SSPX PALM SUNDAY MASS AFFIRM EENS

These Catholic youth now know that LG 8 etc are invisible cases. For the first time in their life somebody told them about it and it was not at the Latin Mass. They are also invisible cases for the Augustinian Recollect priest and they do not talk about it at Mass in Italian. Yes they are invisible people say.Everyone agrees with me. They they say and that this is something obvious. They can only be invisible cases.

VATICAN COUNCIL II AND THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SHOULD NOT BE A BREAK WITH TRADITION FOR THE SSPX YOUTH

So for the SSPX youth the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II should not be a break with Tradition. For every priest, bishop, cardinal and pope  LG 8, 14 and 16 should not be a break with the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed. Since LG 8 etc can only be invisible in our reality. This is a given. There is no other choice. Only God can see someone saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) or the baptism of desire(BOD), or in imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), or outside the Church where salvation subsists (LG 8), or where and when, God is not limited to the Sacraments (CCC1257).

POPE BENEDICT CHOSE IRRATIONALITY AND SAID THERE WAS A HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY WITH TRADITION.

But there is confusion in the Catholic Church. Even Pope Benedict said Vatican Council II has the hermeneutic of continuity with the past. He meant that the Council interpreted irrationally, with the false premise, was in harmony with the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, which also interprets the BOD and I.I irrationally.

So there was a rupture for Pope Benedict, with the dogma ENS according to Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston and the St. Benedict Center of his time. Pope Benedict would say that EENS today after Vatican Council II is no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16^th century. For him there was a rupture with the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) of Pope Honorius III and St.Dominc Guzman. 

For Pope Benedict, with the false premise and inference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II there was also a rupture with the Council of Florence (1442).It defined the dogma EENS without mentioning BOD and I.I as being exceptions.

So the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican today interprets Vatican Council II irrationally as it did in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO) which it issued during the time of Pope Pius XII.

YOUTH AFFIRM EENS BUT NEGATE IT WITH VATICAN COUNCIL II

The SSPX also interprets Vatican Council II irrationally like the popes from Paul VI to Francis. They interpret EENS irrationally like the popes from Pius XII to Francis. So the three youth would be affirming traditional EENS according to the old Councils and Catechisms but would be negating it with the SSPX interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

NON CHRISTIAN LAITY IMPORTANT

The SSPX priest understood what was happening yesterday morning when I was speaking to the three youth. He said he would not speak to me. He told the youth not to speak to me. If they affirmed EENS with no exceptions, as they did, but also in harmony with Vatican Council II’s invisible cases, the non Catholic police in Rome would object and so would the non Catholic laity.

So the SSPX denies the faith by projecting LG 8, 14 and 16, UR 3 etc as not being invisible but visible people saved outside the Church.This is political and convenient.- Lionel Andrades    

SSPX priest in Rome denies the Faith before non Christians

 

SSPX priest in Rome denies the Faith before non Christians

 

Another week and he will not answer. I asked him the same question. He is afraid. He knows what I am saying and he knows that he must not answer. It’s tough for the both of us. We know what the stakes are. It makes no difference for me in the sense I have past the point of no return but not him. He knows the implications and the sacrifices he has to make our big. So he wants to avoid it. He does not want to talk about it. It is something too sensitive. He agrees with me and we are on the same wavelength but he does not want to make his position known. He wants to be prudent like just about everyone else.

The priest who offered the Palm Sunday Mass at the SSPX chapel in Rome yesterday morning avoided me again before the Mass and he was cautioning everyone else not to talk to me.

Why? Since the subject is extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Leftist police, non Christians, are targeting Catholics, especially missionaries and those interested in evengelisation with traditional Catholic doctrine supported by Vatican Council II which is ecclesiocentric and missionary.

Fr. Federico Montani the SSPX priest who offered the Mass would not answer if Lumen Gentium 8, 14 and 16 etc, in Vatican Council II referred to invisible cases only in 2023.Since if they referred to visible cases for him, then he was really telling the non Christian police in Rome, that he does not affirm the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1442) which defined extra ecclesiam nulla salus and did not mention any exceptions. When LG 8 etc are explicit then this is liberalism. It is the public heresy of popes from Paul VI to Francis, in their rejection of the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II.

It is well known that for the SSPX bishops Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition. For years Fr. Montani has been teaching this and it was part of his religious formation with the SSPX. So they infer that LG 8 etc refer to visible cases. Invisible people cannot be objective examples of salvation outside the Church in the present times and so practical exceptions for the Council of Florence etc.

So Fr. Montani and the SSPX really reject the dogma EENS according to the Fourth Lateran Council and this sits well with the local police. There are visible exceptions for EENS is the political position of the SSPX and the liberals.

The SSPX priest is telling the police, which monitor the chapel and other churches here that he is not Anti Semitic, racists and other control-labels of the Left. His interpretation of Vatican Council II is not continuity with Tradition.

This is a denial of the Catholic Faith. By projecting LG 8 etc as being physically visible cases in the present times. The SSPX priests at Albano, Italy, are changing the interpretation of the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed and rejecting the Athanasius Creed. The Catechisms of Trent and Pius X which affirm the dogma EENS are made obsolete. This is bringing the liberal division into the Catholic Church.

I go for the SSPX Mass but I do not interpret Vatican Council II like Bishop Bernard Fellay and Fr. Davide Pagliarani whom Fr. Federico Montani follows.

The irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, the Creeds and Catechisms was a mistake of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Fr. Franz Schmidberger, Fr. Nicklaus Pfluger, Roberto dei Mattei, the Hildebrands, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, John Vennari, Christopher Ferrara and many others.

YOUNG PEOPLE AT THE SSPX MASS AGREE WITH ME

Yesterday morning I spoke to three young men before the Mass. They agreed with me. There are no invisible cases of a non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire. If anyone was saved as such they would only be known to God. I showed them a page which listed LG 8, 14 and 16 etc as being ‘Invisible Cases’. I also showed them a page in color  which listed Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14, the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846 etc supporting 'Exclusive Salvation in the Catholic Church'.

The page which listed invisible cases does  not contradict the page with citations showing the Church still today teaches that there is exclusive salvation and this is mentioned in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

These young men attend the SSPX Mass in Albano Lazio where the local bishop is Vincenzo Viva and the emeritus bishop is Cardinal Marcello Semeraro. They both interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition by choosing the irrational premise. The liberals and traditionalists have something in common at Albano. -Lionel Andrades

 MARCH 6, 2023

SSPX's Father Federico Montani must only be allowed to interpret Vatican Council II honestly and so rationally at the Latin Mass in Rome. This is a legal point. He is correct when he rejects Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted irrationally and so dishonestly

 

 FEBRUARY 28, 2023

Father Federico Montani must only be allowed to interpret Vatican Council II honestly and so rationally at the Latin Mass in Rome. This is a legal point. He is correct when he rejects Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted irrationally and so dishonestly

 

Father Federico Montani will not be given permission by Cardinal Arthur Roche  to offer the Latin Mass at the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) chapel in Rome because of his rejection of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But if he demands that the pope and cardinals interpret Vatican Council II rationally and ethically and accept the traditional and honest conclusion, things could be different. Since Vatican Council II can only be interpreted ethically and rationally and the conclusion has to be traditional only- and the popes and cardinals are not doing this.

The responsibility lies with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican and not the Superior of the SSPX, Albano,Italy or the other religious communities, like the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate of Fr. Stefano Manelli f.i or the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Still River, MA, USA.

The Vatican is illegal when it chooses a Fake Premise to interpret Vatican Council II. The cardinals cannot pretend that this is normal and legal.

Fr. Mantoni has a legal right to be able to interpret Vatican Council II rationally and honestly. He must not be forced to be dishonest by the Vatican and the Left.

If he announces that he chooses to accept Vatican Council II rationally and honestly and so come in harmony with Tradition, without rejecting Vatican Council II,  will the Vatican accept it? Will this be enough to officially allow him to continue to offer the Latin Mass? Will it be the same for other religious communities in Italy and throughout the world?

The SSPX must ask this of the Vatican- only clarify a legal point.

The Vatican and the Left must interpret the Council honestly at every Mass, Latin or Novus Ordo. The members of the Vatican Tribunal are obliged to interpret Vatican Council II rationally and honestly. Even Cardinal Angelo Becciu must be granted this right.

The Judges of the Vatican Supreme Tribunal must only interpret the Council rationally. This is obligatory. Catechesis for the children of the secular judges of the secular courts in Rome must only be based upon Vatican Council II interpreted honestly.

Father Federico Montani must only be allowed to interpret Vatican Council II honestly and so rationally at the Latin Mass in Rome. This is a legal point. He is correct when he rejects Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted irrationally and so dishonestly.   - Lionel Andrades

FEBRUARY 27, 2023

Se la FSSPX interpreta razionalmente il Concilio Vaticano II la loro immagine cambia

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/02/se-la-fsspx-interpreta-razionalmente-il.html

FEBRUARY 27, 2023

If the SSPX interprets Vatican Council II rationally their image changes

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/02/if-sspx-interprets-vatican-council-ii.html

 FEBRUARY 27, 2023

Il sacerdote della FSSPX non è etico riguardo al Concilio Vaticano II

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/02/il-sacerdote-della-fsspx-non-e-etico.html

FEBRUARY 27, 2023

SSPX priest is unethical on Vatican Council II

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/02/sspx-priest-is-unethical-on-vatican.html

FEBRUARY 26, 2023

Il sacerdote della FSSPX afferma il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus secondo i vecchi Concili e Catechismi della Chiesa ma non il Concilio Vaticano II e il Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/02/il-sacerdote-della-fsspx-afferma-il.html

FEBRUARY 26, 2023

SSPX priest affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the old Church Councils and Catechisms but not Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/02/sspx-priest-affirms-dogma-extra.html

                                        

Hard Line — Evangelization Has To Be Effective

Colleen Willard - Story of a miraculous healing in Medjugorje

https://www.medjugorje.ws/en/videos/surrender-healing-medjugorje-colleen-willard-story/

I accept Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church which I interpret rationally. Based upon Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) of Pope Honorius III, at the time of St. Dominic Guzman and the founders of the Dominican Order of Preachers.

 

I accept Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church which I interpret rationally. Based upon Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) of Pope Honorius III, at the time of St. Dominic Guzman and the founders of the Dominican Order of Preachers.

VATICAN COUNCIL II HAS THE HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY WITH THE FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL OF POPE HONORIOUS III

For me Vatican Council II has a continuity with the past Magisterium over the centuries. It is not a rupture with the Athanasius Creed and the Catechism of Pope Pius X or the Catechism of Trent.

Even Pope Francis, the cardinals and bishops accept Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.However :

1) they must accept LG 8, 14 and 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being invisible cases and 

2) they must not accept the second part of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney which made a mistake. It interpreted the baptism of desire (LG 14) and being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) as being physically visible examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church. So the second part contradicted the first part which affirm traditional EENS.

THE 1949 LOHO WAS NOT PLACED IN THE ACTA APOSTOLICA SEDIS SAYS EWTN

The 1949 LOHO was not placed in the Acta Apostolica Sedis according to a EWTN report. In 1949 the Letter of the Holy Office was issued by it was made public three years later by the Archdiocese of Boston. Fr. Leonard Feeney had appealed for the full text of the Letter to be made public.

THERE WERE NO VISIBLE CASES OF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE SAID FR. LEONARD FEENEY

According to Fr. Leonard Feeney there were no visible cases of the baptism of desire (Bread of Life).Someone saved with the baptism of desire was always invisible for us human beings and known only to God. So there really is  no baptism of desire case for us. Over the centuries the baptism of desire was always accepted as being invisible and hypothetical and so was not projected as a practical exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Council of Florence 1442, etc). - Lionel Andrades 

 MARCH 16, 2023
EWTN admits that the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office(LOHO) was not published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis EWTN is dishonest and political
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/03/holy-office-to-archbishop-of-boston.html


Leonard Feeney on 'no salvation outside the Church'


https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/leonard-feeney-on-no-salvation-outside-the-church-12315

CDF needs to correct the mistake in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case : EWTN reports on the Boston Heresy of Pope Pius XII and the Archbishop of Boston are irrational, heretical and schismatic

 

JANUARY 21, 2015

Brian Patrick & Jerry Usher Return to EWTN Radio in 2015 : they contradict Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson and John Martignoni

EWTN Global Catholic Network, in its 34th year, is available in over 238 million television households in more than 140 countries and territories according to a press release.

What is not said by EWTN's media office is that EWTN affirms the Marchetti Letter (1949) in which it is assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, refer to known cases in the present times and these known persons are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma by Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Then then use this irrational reasoning in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. 

 

Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) refers to known cases in the present times.They would have to be known to become exceptions. Since they are known in 2015, Vatican Council II becomes a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition.This is irrational since these persons would be in Heaven. 

 

According to the press release, with its direct broadcast satellite television and radio services, AM & FM radio networks, worldwide short-wave radio station, Internet website www.ewtn.com, electronic and print news services, and publishing arm, EWTN is the largest religious media network in the world.

EWTN/National Catholic Register does not comment or discuss how John Martignoni , the apologist on EWTN, who is also a member of the Diocesan Staff of Bishop Robert J.Baker, in the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama, where the offices of EWTN and the NCR are situated, contradicts the article on Salvation and the Church written on the EWTN website (by the late Fr.William Most).He also contradicts the interview of Cardinal Gerhard Muller by Edward Pentin, of EWTN's National Catholic Register  placed on the Vatican website.

John Martignoni says 'Zero cases of something are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus' .So how can there be anything in Vatican Council II to contradict the traditional teaching on salvation before 1949? Where are the exceptions in Alabama,USA  in 2015,  to the traditional interpretation of the dogma according to the popes, saints and Vatican Council II itself (AG 7). For the Marchetti letter sero cases are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.

For Brian Patrick & Jerry Usher and EWTN there are known exceptions to the dogma.

There is a problem here. Brian Patrick and Jerry Usher are not going to say that Vatican Council II indicates all Jews, Muslims and other non Catholics need to formally enter the Church with 'faith and baptism' for salvation ( to avoid Hell). It would be the end of their careers at EWTN.

So the largest religious media network in the world changes Catholic Church teaching with an irrationality-and no one complains.-Lionel Andrades

July 18, 2014

Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson contradicts USCCB : the baptism of desire is not visible to us and so is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salushttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/archbishop-thomas-egullickson.html

Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/archbishop-thomas-egullickson-says.html#links

Thursday, July 17, 2014
NO DENIAL FROM THE USCCB: IRRATIONALITY BEING USED IN ALL THE U.S DIOCESES IN THE INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II AND THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/no-denial-from-usccb-irrationality.html#links

____________________________________

Posted byConnecticut Catholic Corner

Brian Patrick & Jerry Usher Return to EWTN Radio in 2015

Irondale, AL (EWTN) – Two exciting new shows will be coming to the EWTN Global Catholic Radio Network program schedule in 2015: “Morning Glory with Brian Patrick” and “Take 2 with Jerry Usher & Debbie Georgianni.”

COMING THIS SPRING:

“Take 2 with Jerry Usher & Debbie Georgianni”

“Take 2” heralds the return of Jerry Usher, “the undisputed voice of Catholic radio” to EWTN Radio. Joined by motivational and public speaker Debbie Georgianni, “Take 2” is live, interactive, conversational – and will get Catholics asking the right questions of themselves and the culture they live in. “Take 2 With Jerry Usher & Debbie Georgianni” will be heard weekdays on EWTN radio, which will also produce the show.

COMING THIS SUMMER:

“Morning Glory with Brian Patrick"

In addition to his role as “EWTN News Nightly” Executive Producer and Anchor, Brian Patrick returns to EWTN Radio weekday mornings this summer with “Morning Glory,” a Christ centered, full service, live morning show that will have listeners across the country “waking up the Catholic way.”

“Morning Glory with Brian Patrick,” will be heard weekday mornings on EWTN radio, which will also produce the show.
 

        EWTN Global Catholic Network, in its 34th year, is available in over 238 million television households in more than 140 countries and territories. With its direct broadcast satellite television and radio services, AM & FM radio networks, worldwide short-wave radio station, Internet websitewww.ewtn.com, electronic and print news services, and publishing arm, EWTN is the largest religious media network in the world.

TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 2016

The local liberal bishop took over EWTN and projected being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) as an exception to Mother Angelica's understanding of the dogma on salvation

Mother Angelica held the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)  according to the popes,Church Councils and saints. When the local liberal bishop took over EWTN he projected being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) as being an exception to Mother Angelica's understanding of the dogma on salvation.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger supported the local bishop and the USCCB with the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology.It assumes there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS. For the CDF Prefect there was known salvation outside the Church but for Mother Angelica there was no known salvation outside the Church.Cardinal Ratzinger however was still reported as being a fan of EWTN.

Present day EWTN like Pope Benedict, continues to project the dogma EENS as having exceptions.The traditionalists do the same.

When Christopher Ferrara wrote EWTN a Network Gone Wrong he made the same mistake. He did not know that assuming there is known salvation outside the Church, in the new theology,  was responsible for EWTN's break with Tradition.He did not know that there was an objective  error in the theology of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.It was  heresy, approved by the magisterium.

Chris Ferrara would use the irrational premise and inference to interpret Vatican Council II and the result would be non traditional.Then he would reject Vatican Council II.

The new EWTN would also use the same irrational premise and inference to interpret Vatican Council II but would welcome the non traditional result ( like Pope Benedict in his interview with Avvenire) and then accept Vatican Council II.

 The theological committees of the new EWTN, without Mother Angelica, would  then consider Christopher Ferrara and Fr.Nicholas Gruner as 'schismatic', 'pre conciliar' and 'dissenting'.

Ferrara and Fr.Nicholas Gruner did not know that by avoiding the inference, that of there being known exceptions to the dogma EENS, Vatican Council II and EENS, would be in harmony with the old ecclesiology of the Church.

But not every one agrees with the new EWTN without Mother Angelica.

John Martignoni who has a program on EWTN says there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS.He refers to the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as 'zero cases'.Zero cases for him ( and for me) cannot be exceptions to anything.

-Lionel Andrades

___________________________________

What would be the reaction of EWTN or the other forums they are associated with if Fr.Harrison and Patrick Madrid said that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are invisible for us and so - one can also affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church?

 

This was the original position of Mother Angelica. She held the literal interpretation of the dogma according to the popes. Councils and saints. However, when the local liberal bishop took over they projected being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) as being an exception to Mother Angelica's understanding of the dogma on salvation.

Gradually EWTN began saying that it was not necessary for every one in the present times to enter the Catholic Church since there could be visible to us cases saved in invincible ignorance etc. It was assumed there were known exceptions.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/05/frbrian-harrison-like-other-convert.html

When Mother Angelica was there at EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network) there was a page on their website devoted to the Church teaching outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.Mother Angelica insisted that this was the teaching of the Church and made available a list of Church Fathers who affirmed what later became a dogma at the Council of Florence.

 Fr.William Most's artcile on the EWTN website, The Church and Salvation and his article on the internet, The Tragic Errors of Fr.Leonard Feeney placed by EWTN on the internet indicate there is dissent at EWTN and a rejection of the Church's teachings.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2009/10/ewtn-without-mother-angelica-is.html

_________________________________________________

Bishop Robert J.Baker approves the irrational interpretation of EWTN/NCR speakers and writers ?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/bishop-robert-jbaker-approves.html

SEPTEMBER 24, 2011

APPEAL TO CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, VATICAN: IT’S TIME TO CLARIFY THE BOSTON HERESY OF RICHARD CUSHING http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/09/appeal-to-congregation-for-doctrine-of.html

ROBERT KENNEDY ASKED RICHARD CUSHING TO SUPPRESS FR.LEONARD FEENEY

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/07/robert-kennedy-asked-richard-cushing-to.html

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-0228-ewtn.htm

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2013

Fr.Leonard Feeney goes undefended.

What the disobedient Feeney said amounted to this: he insisted that all who did not formally enter the Church would go to hell... Further, all adults who did not formally enter the Church - get their names on a parish register - would also go to hell, even if they never had a chance to hear there was a Church, e.g., those in the western hemisphere during the long centuries before Columbus...

Therefore Feeney consigned literally millions upon millions to hell, even though He gave them no chance...

Later Magisterium texts speak of those who pertain to the Church or are joined to the Church by even an unconscious desire, contained in the will to do what is right. John Paul II spoke of a mysterious grace...

No we merely say that some who are Baptists (or other types) can, if they fill the conditions given above, become substantially, not formally, members of the Catholic Church as individuals, and so can be saved.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/feeney.txt

This EWTN reports says 'even if they never had a chance to hear there was a Church'. If someone 'never had a chance to hear about the Church' and was saved it would be known only to God. So why mention it ? Are these known exceptions to the dogma and Fr.Leonard Feeney. Is EWTN implying that every one does not have to be a 'card carrying member' since there are known exceptions ?

Then EWTN refers to those who' are joined to the Church by even an unconscious desire, contained in the will to do what is right' and who are saved. So these are are known exceptions ? For us to know these cases they must exist. Does the Bishop where EWTN is situated know any such case on earth?

EWTN says 'if they fill the conditions given above, become substantially, not formally, members of the Catholic Church as individuals, and so can be saved' They can be saved but this would be known only to God.These cases are unknown at EWTN so how can they be considered exceptions to the traditional teaching of Fr.Leonard Feeney. They are possibilities but not exceptions.

If the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, being saved in imperfect communion with the Church etc are explicit for us in 2013 then it is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It means those with the baptism of desire etc do not have to convert into the Catholic Church and these cases are known on earth for them to be exceptions.It would mean every one does not have to be a visible member of the Church for salvation as is commonly held. But these cases are unknown to us. Invisible cases cannot be exceptions.

This is irrational. There should be protests at EWTN (viewer@ewtn.com) over this irrationality.


Also the bishop where EWTN is situated should be contacted.Mother Angelica held the literal interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation.

How can EWTN imply there are known cases on earth which are exceptions to every one needing to be a visible member of the Church as was taught for centuries in the Catholic Church.


Does everyone need to be a card carrying member of the Church? Yes - this is the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846, Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the defined dogma Cantate Domino Council of Florence 1441 etc.

And there are no known explicit exceptions as EWTN implies.-Lionel Andrades

___________________________________________________________

The network has occasionally been the subject of criticism for its social, political, and theological positions. In 2000, the Holy See ordered an apostolic visitation to investigate the network. Believing that it could possibly endanger the network's independence and rather than risk it being placed under ecclesiastical control, Mother Angelica turned EWTN over to a board of governors composed exclusively of lay people, which assured its independence from the Holy See. The current president is Michael P. Warsaw.[7] While the network has trustees, it does not have shareholders or owners. A majority of the network's funding is from viewer donations. Its traditional plea for donations is "Keep us between your gas and electric bill".

Doctrinal disputes
In a 1993 episode of Mother Angelica Live, Mother Angelica harshly criticized a mimed re-enactment of the Stations of the Cross at the World Youth Day in Denver, Colorado, which was attended by Pope John Paul II. Mother Angelica was particularly upset that a woman was playing Jesus. Controversial archbishop Rembert Weakland of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee called Mother Angelica's comments "...one of the most disgraceful, un-Christian, offensive, and divisive diatribes I have ever heard".[17] Mother Angelica responded by saying, "He didn't think a woman playing Jesus was offensive? He can go put his head in the back toilet as far as I am concerned"![18]


In 1997, Mother Angelica publicly criticized Cardinal Roger Mahony, then the archbishop of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, for his pastoral letter on the Eucharist called "Gather Faithfully Together: A Guide for Sunday Mass", which she perceived had a lack of emphasis on transubstantiation[19]: "I’m afraid my obedience in that diocese would be absolutely zero. And I hope everybody else’s in that diocese is zero".[20] Cardinal Mahony regarded her comments as accusing him of heresy.[21] Mother Angelica later issued a conditional, albeit reluctant, apology for her comments.

In 1999, Bishop David Foley of the Archdiocese of Birmingham, Alabama issued a decree prohibiting priests in his diocese from celebrating Mass ad orientem ("to the east"; that is, with both the priest and the people facing east) under most circumstances.[22] Although the decree did not specifically mention EWTN, the wording of the decree, which stated that "...any Mass that is or will be televised for broadcast or videotaped for public dissemination", supporters and critics alike generally agreed that the decree was written with EWTN specifically in mind. Bishop Foley stated that the practice of having the priest's back to the people "amounts to making a political statement and is dividing the people."[22]

On January 1, 2006, a book critical of EWTN and Mother Angelica, EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong by Christopher Ferrara, was published. According to the book's promotional website, "Basing itself on extensive evidence taken from EWTN’s own content, and comparing that content to the perennial belief and practice of the Church, the book shows that EWTN’s 'moderately Modernist' version of the Faith is precisely what St. Pius X had in view when he condemned Modernism in all its forms, including what His Holiness called 'the Modernist as reformer'".-Wikipedia

THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 2023

EWTN's reports on Fr. Leonard Feeney are political propaganda: Without the Boston Heresy of Pope Pius XII Vatican Council II supports the Jesuit priest on EENS

 EWTN reports on Fr. Leonard Feeney, choose the Boston Heresy of Pope Pius XII and Cardinal Richard Cushing to interpret the baptism of desire and being saved in invincibile ignorance, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and Vatican Council II (LG 8,14,16 etc). Without the Boston Heresy, EWTN apologists and adminstration  would have to support the strict interpretation of EENS. They would emerge as Feeneyites themselves.

The Boston Heresy emerges after invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincibile ignorance(I.I) are considered physically visible examples of known salvation in personal cases, in the present times. Then it is inferred that the dogma EENS has practical exceptions and is now obsolete. So it is concluded that Vatican Concia II is a break with Tradition and has made traditional ecclesiocentrism obsolete.Since outside the Church there is (known) salvation.This was the reasoning of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston approved by the popes from Pius XII to Francis. All the cardinals accepted the irrationality of the 1949 LOHO and so does EWTN.

When the BOD and I.I are interpreted rationally, with the rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion, they are not practical exceptions for EENS.They do not contradict Feeneyite EENS.

But when they are interpreted irrationally, with the irrational premise, inference and non traditional conclusion, they are projected as  practical exceptions for EENS. They contradict Feeneyite EENS.

When the rational premise is used (  and there is no other ethical choice), then the Boston Heresy refers to the heresy of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the popes. They had confused what is invisible (LG 14, LG 16 ) as being visible and then made irrational conclusions, which were political.

So they approved the 1949 LOHO which says not every one needs to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation, as if they knew of some particolar exception in 1949.It was as if they could see or meet someone saved outside the Catholic Church, without faith and the baptism of water.The dogma EENS defined by three Church Councils says the opposite i.e everyone needs to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation.

It is with this Boston Heresy that EWTN has posted some reports on the Internet.

1.Letter to the Archbishop of Boston.

2.Leonard Feeney on 'no salvation outside the Church'.

3.Tragic Errors of Fr. Leonard Feeney.

In these three reports EWTN overlooks the Boston Heresy of Pope Pius XII and Cardinal Richard Cushing.

Without the Boston Heresy EWTN would have to support Fr. Leonard Feeney and interpret Vatican Council II, rationally.The Council would then support the interpretation of EENS according to Fr. Leanard Feeney.

EWTN does not choose to be honest. It has to be political and dishonest. So it does not support the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS and neither Vatican Council II interpreted rationally.

-Lionel Andrades

Letter to the Archbishop of Boston

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/letter-to-the-archbishop-of-boston-2076

LIONEL ANDRADES: EWTN POSITION PAPER AT ODDS WITH AUTHENTIC CATHOLIC TEACHING.

https://douglawrence.wordpress.com/tag/fenneyites/

 MARCH 16, 2023
EWTN admits that the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office(LOHO) was not published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis EWTN is dishonest and political
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/03/holy-office-to-archbishop-of-boston.html


Leonard Feeney on 'no salvation outside the Church'

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/leonard-feeney-on-no-salvation-outside-the-church-12315

Tragic Errprs of Fr. Leonard Feeney https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/tragic-errors-of-leonard-feeney-12314

_____________________________________

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2011

EWTN, Trinity Communications, Jefferey Mirus suggest Native Americans before the arrival of the missionaries were saved

EWTN, Trinity Communications, Jefferey Mirus are dishonestly presenting church teaching.

They indicate that the unbaptized in the Western hemisphere before the arrival of Columbas were all saved without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. For them  being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) is the ordinary means of salvation. Also, Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (LG14,  AG 7) was not the ordinary means of salvation for the Native Americans before the missionaries arrived there.

They have been rejecting the Nicene Creed  (1) in which we pray ‘I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin.’ The baptism of water is needed to forgive Original Sin, the stain of Adam.Through baptism, given to adults with Catholic Faith, we accept Jesus’ Sacrifice and salvation from Hell.

This heresy and dishonesty about the Catholic Faith is expressed in an article placed on the internet by EWTN and Jeffrey Mirus’ Trinity Communications. Mirus is the President of Catholic Culture.

 

What the disobedient Feeney said amounted to this: he insisted that all who did not formally enter the Church would go to hell…Further, all adults who did not formally enter the Church - get their names on a parish register - would also go to hell, even if they never had a chance to hear there was a Church, e.g., those in the western hemisphere during the long centuries before Columbus. Therefore Feeney consigned literally millions upon millions to hell, even though He gave them no chance. TRAGIC ERRORS OF LEONARD FEENEY by Fr. William Most -Trinity Communications 1994 and EWTN.

This article also has other errors.

EWTN REMOVES FR.CORAPI BUT CONTINUES TO TEACH HERESY ON FR.LEONARD FEENEY WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL BISHOP

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/09/ewtn-removes-frcorapi-but-continues-to.html

Mother Angelica had a page placed on the EWTN website with the statements of the Church Fathers and popes on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Mother Angelica was removed by the local bishop and the page on extra ecclesiam nulla salus was replaced with Fr.William Most’s errors critical of the dogma and Fr.Leonard Feeney.
 

Just as the Archbishop of Boston misused his powers and placed restrictions on Fr. Leonard Feeney even though the priest was not in heresy, the bishop used his power to change the orthodox teaching on EWTN.

Just as Archbishop Richard Cushing was in heresy for denying that everyone needs to be a visible member of the Church for salvation the local bishop denies the same through EWTN.He also contradicts the Church Councils, the popes, the saints, the dogma and Vatican Council II.

As Cardinal Richard Cushing was in heresy for suggesting that there was explicitly known cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance or with with baptism of desire and so this contradicted the 'infallible teaching' the bishop and the EWTN are in heresy for suggesting that the Native Americans were saved before the arrival of the Catholic missionaries.

This is also the heresy of the Catholic Culture President.

-Lionel Andrades
_______________________________________________________

FR.LEONARD FEENEY: TRAGIC ERRORS BY JEWISH LEFT, TRINITY COMMUNICATIONS AND FR.WILLIAM MOST

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/08/frleonard-feeney-tragic-errors-by.html

EWTN CONTINUES CAMPAIGN AGAINST FR.LEONARD FEENEY
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2009/10/ewtn-continues-campaign-against.html

EWTN USES PEJORATIVE TERM FOR CATHOLIC SISTERS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2009/11/ewtn-uses-pejorative-term-for-catholic.html

1.

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible...In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. (Emphasis added)-Wikipedia

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2016

Bishop Robert J. Baker and Raymond Arroyo could clarify if Mother Angelica was correct on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since there are no known exceptions in 2016

Bishop Robert J.Baker is the bishop the diocese of Birmingham in Alabama  where EWTN is situated. John Martignoni is the Director of the Office of the New Evangelization and Stewardship in the diocese and is a well known Catholic apologist  with a program on EWTN.

John Martignoni  has said that 'Zero cases of something are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.' In other words we do not know of any explicit exception to all needing to enter the Church for salvation in 2016.This is something obvious. We cannot see any exceptions.

Even for Mother Angelica the founder of EWTN there were no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.She had posted a list on EWTN of the popes and saints affirming the dogma like the 16th century missionaries.It was not like Pope Benedict in his recent interview with Avvenire.

I have asked John Martignoni if there are any exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II for him, since for me there are none. He will not answer.He said there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS but would not comment on Vatican Council II.

Neither will Bishop Baker or the directors and officials of his diocese offices put forward an answer.

They will not disagree or agree with John Martignoni and Bishop Thomas E. Gullickson who say there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS.Obviously there are no known  exceptions! 

For Raymond Arroyo and the speakers on EWTN  situated in Alabama, the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Even for EWTN 's National Catholic Register correspondents there are known exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For Mark Shea and Edward Pentin there are known exceptions.

MOTHER ANGELICA'S EENS

Why cannot we all go back to Mother Angelica's understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus,as interpreted by the 16th century missionaries ? John Martignoni, says there are no known exceptions to the dogma  and Bishop Robert Baker does not know of any one today who does not need to be 'card carrying member of the Church', to avoid the fires of Hell. So why cannot we affirm EENS as did Mother Angelica?

DIOCESE CLARIFICATION

The  diocese of  Birmingham in Alabama and EWTN could  officially affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus  with no known exceptions in 2016.No one in the diocese knows of any exception.

EXCEPTIONS FOR THE POPE

Pope Benedict has said that 'the dogma has evolved' but we do not know of any exceptions, there is no known salvation outside the Church. Pope Benedict could confirm for EWTN or the diocese of Alabama, that he does not know of any one saved outside the Church, without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14).He personally does not know of any one who would be an exception to the 16th century Catholic interpretation of  the dogma.

BISHOPS MISTAKE

The liberal bishop who took over EWTN from Mother Angelica possibly told her that LG 16 for example was an exception to her understanding of EENS. In other words LG 16 referrred not to an invisible but a visible case. It would have to be somebody personally known, physically known to be an exception.Is there such a person for the present bishop in the diocese of EWTN ?

CONFIRMATION NEEDED

We now know that the liberal bishop who initially took over EWTN, which was being criticized by the National Catholic Reporter, assumed that there were known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He made an objective mistake we  now know.So  could Bishop Robert J. Baker confirm this? 

RAYMOND ARROYO

He could simply confirm that there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, there are no known cases in 2016 of persons saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. He could confirm that in 2016 we do not know of any person saved with the baptism of desire and blood or in invincible ignorance, without the baptism of water .

He could ask Raymond Arroyo to state his position on this issue.

FOR ME

1.I personally do not know of any such case of someone being saved without the baptism of water 

2.No one in the past could have known of any such case. Physically they could not see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of desire etc.Neither could they say that any particular person on earth was saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

3.Those who refer to 'the desirethereof ' (Council of Trent) do not state that these cases were explicit and personally known. It was theologians who interpreted these cases as being explicit.So when a  baptism of desire list is presented, for me,there is not a single reference which says that these cases are objective or relevant to EENS.The entire list is irrelevant to EENS. They are not exceptions.

4. No one who issued the Baltimore Catechism knew of a case of some one saved with 'only the desire' and without the baptism of water. So how could they speculate that 'the desire thereof' was a known baptism like the baptism of water? This was irrational. The baptism of water is physical. The baptism of desire is not.

So if any of the speakers on EWTN says there is salvation outside the Church it is speculation. This speculation cannot be posited as being an explicit exception to the dogma on salvation.

AGREE WITH ME

Bishop Baker, Raymond Arroyo and the EWTN speakers and apologists could say  for example the following. 

1. There are no known cases of someone saved outside the Church past or present and so there are no known exceptions to the dogma as it was known in the 16 th century. This is a rational option.

2.They could  say that LG 16,LG 8, NA 2, UR 3 etc refer to invisible and not visible cases. So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict EENS as it was known in the past.

3.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake when it assumed that hypothetical cases were objectively known.There are no known cases of the baptism of desire or blood or being saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water in 2016.

INVISIBLE OR VISIBLE

As I mentioned in a comment on a post on The Catholic World Report, for  me Lumen Gentium  16 refers to an invisible case and so it does not contradict EENS. When there are no exceptions to EENS, the theology is once again traditional and rational.Is it the same for Bishop Robert J. Baker ?

To change the dogma EENS is heresy. To reject it is heresy.To interpret Vatican Council II with an irrationality to produce a non traditional result, is heresy. It is  not affirming Vatican Council II in line with the dogma EENS.It is  changing the dogma EENS, the Nicene Creed and Vatican Council II with an irrational premise ( physically seeing people saved in Heaven without the baptism of water) and a non traditional inference ( these explicit cases in Heaven or earth are known exceptions to EENS).This is being done on EWTN and in the religious and catechetical departments of the EWTN diocese.Could we have a clarification ?.

-Lionel Andrades

The local liberal bishop took over EWTN and projected being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) as an exception to Mother Angelica's understanding of the dogma on salvation

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/the-local-liberal-bishop-took-over-ewtn.html

______________________________________________________________