Saturday, May 31, 2014

Joseph Shaw, Gavin D'Costa obedient to Cardinal Vince Nicols are misleading lay Catholics

New Cardinal Vincent Nichols waits to greet visitors in the Vatican on February 22, 2014 in Vatican City, Vatican. 19 new cardinals were created by Pope Francis earlier today in a ceremony at St Peter's Basilica.
Joseph Shaw, Gavin D'Costa obedient to Cardinal Vince Nicols are misleading lay Catholics and misrepresenting the Catholic Faith.
Lay Catholics who have not studied theology and philosophy are being taught to reason with an irrational premise.They are told that this is the teaching of the Catholic Church. It is said that Vatican Council II ( with the false premise) is a rejection of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. 

Gavin D'Costa a Catholic professor of theology says in public  with Cardinal Vince Nicols' permission, on the website of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales (CBCEW) that the Church teaches that all do not need to enter ; to convert into the Catholic Church.

He is inferring for rank and file Catholics :-

 1.Those saved with ' a ray of the Truth' or 'seeds of the Word'  are visible to us on earth.
2.These deceased can be seen on earth and they were saved without needing to enter the Church with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7).So they are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
3.All salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II is visible to us on earth and so Vatican Councl II is a break with the past. It is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
4.Catholics in general know of people saved in England saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3), 'elements of sanctification and truth' (LG 8), invincible ignorance (LG 16),These deceased now in Heaven are personally known and seen in England or elsewhere.
5.Those Catholics who do not infer as such are rejecting magisterial teaching.They are rejecting Vatican Council II with the false premise.
6.Those who do not accept Vatican Council II with the false premise are heretical, pro SSPX traditionalists or sedevacantists.They are not  Catholics.
7.The Church Councils which defined the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus made a mistake. They did not know that the baptism of desire was an explicit exception.
8.Vatican Council II contradicts itself. Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation) contradicts Lumen Gentium 16 ( non Catholics can be saved explicitly in invincible ignorance)
 Etc.

Joseph Shaw will not criticize/correct the error made by Gavin D'Costa on the website of the CBCEW.
Neither will he proclaim that :
1. All need to enter the Catholic Church in England in 2014 with faith and baptism for salvation and there are no known exceptions.
2.There are no known exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, those of the Church Councils and popes.
 
So in public he holds on to the same irrationality and error of Gavin D'Costa on the CBCEW website.This is supported by the Cardinal-Archbishop of Westminister, Vince Nicols.
 
Joseph Shaw will allow all those Catholics who attend the Traditional Latin Mass in England to use the same irrational inference as he does.There is no Church-text which makes this inference but he will not say this in public. He ignored it at the last LMS One Day Conference in London.
 
His irrational position is politically correct in England. Joseph Shaw lecturers at Oxford where the Catholics and Protestants interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational inference.
 
Joseph Shaw the Chairman of the Latin Mass Society has academic degrees in philosophy and theology and is misleading other Catholics who are not academically qualified like him and who attend the Traditional Latin Mass.
 
I do not like to criticize Cardinal Vince Nicols, Joseph Shaw and Gavin D'Costa  but it would be obvious to even a Protestant or other non Catholic, that they are teaching irrationality and are using a false premise in the interpretation of Vatican Councl II. They are misleading other Catholics who do not know theology  and who assume that this is a teaching in the text of the Council and the Catechism.The Catholic professors at the Universities of Bristol and Oxford are promoting a falsehood in the Catholic Church with the assistance of the bishops of England and Wales.
-Lionel Andrades
 

Joseph Shaw removes comments

Joseph Shaw has removed comments from his blog post LMS Chairman related to the Conference held last Saturday in London in which Bishop Schneider and others spoke about Vatican Council II , the liturgy and evangelisation. He has removed the comments stating that they were not related to the subject.
In the comments I had expressed my view . I said that Vatican Council II without the use of  a false premise by Joseph Shaw and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, was in perfect harmony with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the traditional understanding of evangelisation. So my view was related to the subject of the conference.He did not want to discuss it.

  Joseph  Shaw says in a comment that he affirms all the Church Councils and the teachings on salvation.However he  does not clarify, when asked,  if he interprets these magisterial documents, including Vatican Council, with an irrational premise (of being able to see the dead saved who are living exceptions to the dogma on salvation).So when he says he accepts the the Church Councils and Vatican Council II (AG 7), is it with or without the irrational premise.One view is traditional the other is heresy.
 
Even the liberal Gavin D'Costa would say that he accepts all the teachings of the Catholic Church and for him the Church teaches( he says so on a video) that all do not need to enter the Church for salvation. He infers there are exceptions.
 
For Joseph Shaw who is the Chairman of the Latin Mass Society, it would be normal for a Catholic priest or lay person, to offer or attend the Traditional Latin Mass, while inferring that there are known exceptions to the traditional and ex cathedra teachings on salvation. He probably affirms this error at Oxford where he is a lecturer on philosophy.
 
So his message to Catholics, who attend the TLM and do not know philosphy or theology, is that there are EXCEPTIONS to the traditional teaching of popes and saints. He is telling them that when Jesus said 'Go out and proclaim the Good News and baptize all nations in my name', all in England, do not need to be baptized since there are some EXCEPTIONS known to Gavin D'Costta and Joseph  Shaw. There is a change in the traditional understanding of the Great Commission.
 
Even though I said that Vatican Council II is in agreement with Tradition, Joseph Shaw will not affirm this, neither will be correct me, even after studying philosophy and theology.
-Lionel Andrades

Joseph Shaw responds but only about being rude,boring and spam

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/joseph-shaw-responds-but-only-about.html#links

Joseph Shaw professor of philosophy still does not answer two questions

Joseph Shaw:
I am, obviously, completely happy to affirm the teachings, confirmed by anathemas, of all the General Councils, including those on the question of salvation outside the Church.
 
Lionel:
Are you saying that all need to enter the Catholic Church in England in 2014 with faith and baptism for salvation and there are no known exceptions ?

There are no known exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, those of the Church Councils and popes ?
 

Michael Voris, Robert Sungenis still have a problem with theology : reasoning with a false premise

 
I have not seen the series Baptize All Nations  hosted by Michael Miller  on ChurchMilitant TV.I could guess that it is assumed that every one needs Catholic Faith with the baptism of water EXCEPT for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. That EXCEPT would indicate the theology of Michael Voris and Robert Sungenis.
They would say outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation and all need to convert into the Church EXCEPT ...except for some people who do not have to convert in the present times, since they will be saved with ' a ray of the Truth' or baptism of desire. So Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong for them.
When it is said that Fr.Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong for not inferring that the baptism of desire is visible  for us, theology goes off track.
Voris and Sungenis will then extend their 'except-theology' to Vatican Council II.
Nostra Aetate 2 is an exception to Tradition since obviously ( for those who reason with a false premise,) the person saved with a 'ray of the Truth' is a visible,exception for them.
If  the  deceased-saved, in this case, were not visible, Voris and Sungenis  would be saying that Vatican Council II is not ambiguous. Now since there are EXCEPTIONS Vatican Council II is for them and Cardinal Kaspar and Bishop Schneider,  ambiguous.It is a break with Tradition.Some parts of Vatican Council II support Tradition for them and some do not. The parts which do not support Tradition, they do not realize, are the passages they interpret with the false premise.
 
If there were no EXCEPTIONS then Vatican Council would be in harmony with the literal interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Like lay Catholics,people in general and the Church of Nice, Voris and Sungenis use the false premise ( the dead-saved who are EXCEPTIONS to the dogma). This is their theology.They reason rationally but with an irrational premise.
May be it would be anti-Semitic if they say that all Jews need to convert ( see video) into the Catholic Church for salvation and there can be no known exceptions.So they don't say it.They avoid theology.They will vaguely say that Jews and others need to convert ( see video) but they will not enter into uncomfortable theology.
ChurchMilitant TV's Simon Rafe in correspondence with me uses the except-theology,with the false premise.So he is not really saying all need to convert into the Church.It is the 'except-theology' again of the Church of Nice.
There is a Church of Nice video on the websites of the University of Bristol and the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales.It says clearly that all do not need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation. Those saved with ' a ray of the Truth' or 'seeds of the Word(AG 11) are EXCEPTIONS.
Voris and Sungenis will not challenge this since they want to stay away from  theology like many good Catholics.Many things don't tie up, since they do theology with the Church of Nice  false premise ( the dead saved with a ray of the Truth are visible to them, so they are EXCEPTIONS).
Gavin D'Costa a Catholic professor of theology who makes this non traditional statement on the video, uses the false premise and then creates a new theology. It is a new doctrine for the Catholic Church. A Cushingite, he uses Cushingism and Voris and Sungenis stand back in frightful awe.
If Voris and Sungenis would protest at this statement of D'Costa ( and they don't) the Church of Nice would come back and say this was the decision of the magisterium in the Boston Case of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
End of the matter. Case closed.
 
Then ignorant of theology the two of them would bow before the Church of Nice and the leftist powers that uphold them - and leave the issue.
They will not respond by saying that if the 'magisterium' corrected Fr.Leonard Feeney 's traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus they were using a false premise.It was an irrational inference.The 'magisterium' was inferring that the dead saved with the baptism of desire or a ray of the Truth were EXCEPTIONS . A dead man is an exception?
This is not theology! This is rationality. This is Cushingism.
So like the rest of the sheep (herd) Voris and Sungenis will bleat about known exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
If only they would  explain to the Church of Nice that they accept being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire but for them these cases are possibilities and not known realities.They are hypothetical and not seen in real life, they are accepted in principle( de jure) but are not known defacto, in 2014.
 
Similarly they do not reject being saved with 'a ray of the Truth' or 'imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3), 'seeds of the Word', 'elements of sanctification and truth' (LG 8). Vatican Council II , they could say apologetically, is referring to a probability, a possibility and not a known reality.The Council is not referring to AN EXCEPTION  to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The text also does not make this claim.
For it to be an exception, they could explain to their Church of Nice critics, it would have to be visible and not invisible, objective and not just accepted subjectively, tangible and not intangible.
 
They could defend themself by saying 'one can have it both ways'. One can accept invisible for us,'a ray of the Truth' AND ALSO ACCEPT that all non Catholics have to enter the Catholic Church visibly( with faith and baptism-AG 7) in the present time ( defacto- time). 
They can accept an implicit  for us baptism of desire and an explicit for us extra ecclesiam nulla salus ; all visibly having to enter the one, true Church.
They can affirm implicit baptism ( baptism of desire) along with the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and Pope Pius XII.
So theologically they would not be denying NA 2, UR 3 etc when they make the  distinction between implicit-explicit,invisible-visible etc.
They would not be violating Aristotle's Principle of Non Contradiction since what is implicit is not an exception to  that which is explicit.To be an exception something has to be explicit.
Presently Gavin D'Costa and his Church of Nice are smug. They know that Sungenis, Voris and the rest of the traditionalists are confused over theology. The traditionalists, including the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney still do theology inferring that  ' a ray of the Truth' or the baptism of desire, ARE KNOWN EXCEPTIONS, visible in the flesh, EXCEPTIONS to the literal interpretation of that great priest from Boston, Fr.Leonard Feeney.
I don't expect Voris or Sungenis to comment on this post, since they are still stuck in the mud with the old programming on the visible-dead.
-Lionel Andrades
 

 

Friday, May 30, 2014

Joseph Shaw says the issue is complex : it is because he uses a false premise

Joseph Shaw says that this 'issue is complex'. 1 It is so because he uses a false premise. He assumes that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicit for us and so are an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
It is with this false premise
(1.Invisible cases are visible.
2.So all do not need to convert into the Catholic Church.)
that he begins to interpret Vatican Council II.
 
This is Cushingism. Cardinal Richard Cushing , the Archbishop of Boston inferred that there were known exceptions  to the traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He was supported by the Jesuits in Boston.
 
They then were active at Vatican Council II.
 
Joseph Shaw assumes that those saved with ' a ray of the Truth'(Nostra Aetate 2, Vatican Council II ) refers to visible cases on earth. So NA 2 contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There are exceptions.It is the same with UR 3, LG8 , AG 11 what is acceptable as being invisible and hypothetically possible is considered to be visible in our reality.
 
Many people who assume that Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong to reject the baptism of desire (explicit/visible for them) reason rationally, but with a wrong premise.
 
Change the premise and Fr.Leonard Feeney is in perfect agreement with Vatican Council II including NA 2.
 
If the cardinal who issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII  assumed that the baptism of desire (implicit desire) was an exception to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney,  then that cardinal made an objective mistake.His premise was wrong.
 
It is the same false premise which Gavin D'Costa  uses on the video seen on the websites of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales and the University of Bristol,England.
 
It is with the false premise that there are exceptions to Tradition.Without the false premise there are no exceptions to the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the Syllabus of Errors on other religions, Protestant communities and salvation.
 
It is when the false premise is used that this issue becomes complicated and complex. It becomes a theological minefield.With a rational premise the issue is simplified.
-Lionel Andrades

1.
 
 I am going to start deleting your comments. They are irrelevant to the posts they are attached to - they are essentially spam. They are also incomprehensible, and for that reason boring. They are, finally, rude. You have no idea what the various people who have not responded to your spamming think about these complex issues.-Joseph Shaw


Joseph Shaw responds but only about being rude,boring and spam http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/joseph-shaw-responds-but-only-about.html#links


 
 
 
 
 

Video : Garabandal

Padre Pio recommends Garabandal.
Padre Pio speaks to Joey Joey Lomangino,in perfect English telling him about the specific sins he committed.
The visionaries are now adults living in the USA.There is an interesting segment at the end of this video of an interview with one of the visionaries.
-L.A

The Catholic Church maintains that you have to be Catholic to be saved

Anonymous 2 said...
Catholic Mission:

As I am sure Pater Ignotus and Father McDonald can well explain to us, the Catholic Church does not maintain that you have to be a Catholic to be saved.

But to get you started please read the Catechism sections 839-848 and mediate on the following passage in section quoted in section 847:

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

But of course all are saved only through Jesus Christ.
As I am sure Pater Ignotus and Father McDonald can well explain to us, the Catholic Church does not maintain that you have to be a Catholic to be saved.

Lionel:
Yes it does in Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.
This is the same message of Dominus Iesus 20.
Ad Gentes 7 is placed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the title Outside the Church No Salvation.

But to get you started please read the Catechism sections 839-848 and mediate on the following passage in section quoted in section 847:

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

Lionel:
The above passage does not state that these cases are visible to us, seen in the flesh. So these cases, are not exceptions to Ad Gentes 7.

De facto in reality, objectively, all need 'faith and baptism' to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.

De jure ( in principle) hypothetically, in theory, a person can be saved in invincible ignorance or with implicit desire, as known to God.This is probability, a possibility but not a known exception in 2014.

If you are inferring that a possibility is a known case in 2014 it is irrational. We cannot see the dead and neither does any magisterial text ( Vatican Council II etc) make this claim.

But of course all are saved only through Jesus Christ.

Lionel:
Yes all are saved in Jesus Christ those who are saved with 'faith and baptism' and those with implicit desire etc.

Those persons who are saved with implicit desire ( baptism of desire) are not visible for us but invisible. So they are irrelevant to the traditional teaching which says all need to be Catholic,( with faith and the baptism of water,which is visible) for salvation.

All adults need faith and baptism for salvation in 2014 and you and I do not know a single exception.

-Lionel Andrades

The person who marries a non Catholic and lives with him is living in adultery. It is a mortal sin.Outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation.

15 comments: from the blog southern orders

 
Catholic Missionsaid...
Winter for the Catholic Faith in England

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/winter-for-catholic-faith-in-england.html#links
Anonymous said...
I don't think that there were any "mortal sins" involved in any of what you describe by anybody. Do you really think that your just and merciful God would send your brother to burn in hell for eternity for marrying the woman he loved?

The only one who screwed up was your dear old Dad. Too bad he never was able to realize or admit it.
Fr. Allan J. McDonaldsaid...
You are either ignorant or being silly or not Catholic or nominally so, mortal sin leads to hell as well as a corrupt life that spits at God's laws!
Desiree said...
Enabling is never helpful to anyone involved. I've told my children already that they are to marry a Catholic in a Catholic Church. I will not go to their "wedding" if they don't do this. I take Confession seriously and teach them to do the same. I believe taking Confession seriously is the root to living godly. The examination of conscience covers mortal sins and Church's teachings well, so a person knows them and is aware of their actions.

Sometimes a person can look mean or harsh to others by following God's rules, but His rules/plan make our lives easier. They are given to us out of love.
Anonymous said...
Being the child of a professional military man can be hard. I have known (well) a number of military dads and their children.

Has anybody seen "The Great Santini"?

I have also helped my wife raise (successfully) seven children. Sometimes the very thing that you tell them that they must do or not do is the thing that they don't do or do do.
Pater Ignotus said...
Desiree - If your child marries a Baptized non-Catholic in a non-Catholic church with the necessary permission, that is, then, a sacramental wedding recognized as such by the Catholic Church.

There is no sin whatsoever in marrying a non-Catholic in a non-Catholic setting.
Desiree said...
Hmmm. That's a new change I'm assuming. There is a problem when you marry outside the Catholic faith. There is confusion and disagreements. It is happening in my family.
Catholicism is the true faith, so why mess around? I'm fairly Traditional.
Catholic Missionsaid...
The person who marries a non Catholic and lives with him is living in adultery. It is a mortal sin.
Outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation.
The non Catholic is oriented to Hell unless he enters the Church with 'faith and baptism' (Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II)
Desiree said...
Thank you, Catholic Mission!
WSquared said...
Excellent post, Fr. McDonald.

A man and a woman can be absolutely right for each other, and free to marry, and yet be absolutely wrong in the way in which they go about their marriage. The issue isn't that they "shouldn't love each other," but that what they are doing is actually unloving, being contrary to Love, Himself. What the Church wants to give any couple is a good, solid foundation. There is so much that can and will test any and all marriages, and God will not hold back His grace from those who trust in Him.

Maybe my father took seriously that following Jesus sometimes brings division to the family...

Good for your dad. A false peace is no peace at all.

Michael Coren wrote something along these lines and how well his own father handled it. His father was Jewish, while Coren is a convert to Catholicism. Coren married in the Catholic Church. His father said, "sorry, this is wrong, and I can't attend your wedding." It hurt Coren for his dad not to be there, but the latter did give the couple furniture to help them set up their home. So, one can hold firm on not enabling mortal sin, but still help the couple. And when this kind of situation arises, the operative word here isn't "won't," but "can't."

Also, I think we enable them to love, which means never enabling that which is contrary to love. As a hypothetical example, we would not condone a relative shouting at a couple marrying outside the Church and saying that they're going to Hell. But neither would we condone another relative telling them that what they're doing is okay. In a nutshell, we're looking at the extremes of despair and presumption.

My father eventually reconciled with my brother but never apologized for not going to his wedding. He should not have had to do that.

He had nothing to apologize for in terms of his position. If he was more impatient or insensitive than he should've been, then his approach could've used work, but that's all.

I was wrong in going to my brother's wedding not only because it went against my father's wishes, but it went against my Father in heaven wishes too.

Not to be disrespectful at all, but your father's wishes qua his wishes aren't the issue. It's what Our Father in Heaven commands, and what it means to be contrary to the good of all involved-- you, your father, your brother, and beyond. It's not who's right, but what's right-- important for moving beyond "what I want" versus "what Dad/Mom wants."

Also, given your very last paragraph, far more interesting is where any parent will lean either (too) strict or (too) lax and why, because it's all about priorities: a parent, for example, may consider themselves absolutely "liberal" and "cool" when it comes to what the Church teaches, but then be rigid in other highly destructive ways-- like insisting on achievement but not excellence.

I have already been in the position that your father was in, and I'm not yet a parent. What I took from it was this: I can accede to reasonable requests as charity demands and enables, but I am under no moral obligation to accede to unreasonable and sinful ones. I may have to be patient and forgiving with such requests, but I don't have to find them acceptable or right.

Never did I say that I was "shunning" those in mortal sin and that they were "going to Hell." But there were those who thought that I was indeed "shunning" them or being "unloving." Somebody dropped the usual "don't impose your religion on others" cliche, but the imposition in question most certainly wasn't mine: I didn't say, "marry in the Catholic Church, or I won't come to your wedding." Rather, I said that it was good of them to invite me and that I thought they are well matched. But that I can't celebrate mortal sin.
Anonymous said...
Catholic Mission:

I think you're a tad off the mark - there was a well-known Catholic woman who was married to an honest to to goodness pagan, but who turned out alright. Ever hear of St. Monica and her son, St. Augustine?

Also, two of my aunts were married to non-Catholics, in church and by a priest (though there was not a Mass). Both of my uncles eventually converted to Catholicism, so I'd say that worked out well all around.

Oh - and in case you think this was one of those unfortunate consequences of Vatican II, these marriages were in 1938 and 1939, respectively. Hardly the hey-day of hippy dippy Catholicism.
Anonymous 2 said...
Father McDonald and Readers: Please ignore or delete my comments on this thread. They were posted to the wrong thread by accident. It is late and I am tired!! My apologies.
Catholic Missionsaid...


Anonymous:
I think you're a tad off the mark - there was a well-known Catholic woman who was married to an honest to to goodness pagan, but who turned out alright. Ever hear of St. Monica and her son, St. Augustine?

Lionel:
I hope St.Monica's husband made it to Heaven.

Also, two of my aunts were married to non-Catholics, in church and by a priest (though there was not a Mass).

Lionel:Those non Catholics ( your uncles) were oriented to Hell according to the Catholic Church (AG 7, CCC 846, extra ecclesiam nulla salus etc).
Your aunts were living in adultery.

Both of my uncles eventually converted to Catholicism, so I'd say that worked out well all around.
Lionel: I hope they all went for Confession.

Oh - and in case you think this was one of those unfortunate consequences of Vatican II, these marriages were in 1938 and 1939, respectively. Hardly the hey-day of hippy dippy Catholicism.

Lionel:
Before and after Vatican Council II the Church has not changed its teaching on outside the Church there is no salvation.
Anonymous said...
Catholic Mission / Lionel:

I also hope St. Monica's husband was saved (though I believe he died unconverted so that's up in the air at best). The issue, of course, is St. Monica herself, who the African church (and later the whole Latin church) did not believe to be "living in adultery."

More to the point, here's what the

Catechism of the Catholic Faith
has to say
(note that my aunts' marriages were "mixed marriages;" both of my uncles were baptized Protestants. I excised "disparity of cult" text, but marked the locations by *doc* so you can look it up):

Mixed marriages and disparity of cult

1633 In many countries the situation of a mixed marriage (marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic) often arises. It requires particular attention on the part of couples and their pastors. *doc*

1634 Difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for marriage, when they succeed in placing in common what they have received from their respective communities, and learn from each other the way in which each lives in fidelity to Christ. But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They arise from the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. the spouses risk experiencing the tragedy of Christian disunity even in the heart of their own home. *doc*

1635 According to the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage needs for liceity the express permission of ecclesiastical authority.

(permission my aunts had)

So your charges of "adultery" on the part of my aunts (and by extension, St. Monica) are contradicted by the very Catechism you tried to use to buttress your case. For shame.
Catholic Missionsaid...
Anonymous:
I also hope St. Monica's husband was saved (though I believe he died unconverted so that's up in the air at best). The issue, of course, is St. Monica herself, who the African church (and later the whole Latin church) did not believe to be "living in adultery."

Lionel:
She was a Catholic.If her husband did not convert he is lost to Hell.
I am referring here to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus supported by Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846).

Anonymous:
More to the point, here's what the Catechism of the Catholic Faith has to say (note that my aunts' marriages were "mixed marriages;" both of my uncles were baptized Protestants. I excised "disparity of cult" text, but marked the locations by *doc* so you can look it up):

Lionel:
According to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Council of Florence 1441) Protestants need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation. They need the spiritual help of the Sacraments and the faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church to avoid mortal sin and live with Sanctificying Grace.

Anonymous:
Mixed marriages and disparity of cult

1633 In many countries the situation of a mixed marriage (marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic) often arises. It requires particular attention on the part of couples and their pastors. *doc*

Lionel:
Often, or always, the couple and the pastors do not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Anonymous:
1634 Difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for marriage,
Lionel:
Not if the non Catholic decides to convert and have the children raised as Catholics.

Anonymous:
when they succeed in placing in common what they have received from their respective communities, and learn from each other the way in which each lives in fidelity to Christ.

Lionel:
They can only be faithful to Christ by converting into the Catholic Church.

Anonymous:
But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They arise from the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. the spouses risk experiencing the tragedy of Christian disunity even in the heart of their own home. *doc*

Lionel:
True. Also there is eternal damnation for both. They are living in adultery and without the Sacrament of marriage.

Anonymous:
1635 According to the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage needs for liceity the express permission of ecclesiastical authority.

Lionel:
True.
It would be sad if this permission is given for couples to live in adultery as it could be given for couples who have divorced and remarried or those who support sodomy and same sex marriages as in England.

Anonymous:
(permission my aunts had)
So your charges of "adultery" on the part of my aunts (and by extension, St. Monica) are contradicted by the very Catechism you tried to use to buttress your case. For shame.

Lionel:
Outside the Church there is no salvation is a defined dogma approved by three Councils and supported by Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Protestants are outside the Church. They are oriented to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.
This is a de fide teaching.
It cannot be over ruled by any administrartion or disciplinary action in some part of the Church.
If your aunts were living with a Protestant,a Jew or Muslim it would be adultery for them and their husbands.Since their husbands were unbelievers, the marriage in whatever form it was conducted, could not be a Sacrament for them.
 
-Lionel Andrades

Vatican,Cardinal Vince Nicols, Bishop Michael Campbell, University of Bristol, FIUV misinforming the public : malafide legally?

They have been informed. Yet they do not deny it. Instead they infer that there are known exceptions in 2014 to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This should be denied. It is irrational. Instead they infer that the deceased saved with ' a ray of the Truth' (Nostra Aetate 2,Vatican Council II ) are visible to us on earth.They also suggest that this is the teaching of Vatican Council II when there is no such text in the Council to support this irrationality.Upon this irrationality they base their 'new theology'.

They misrepresent Vatican Council II and the Catholic Church and provide false information; factually incorrect information, about the teachings of the Church.
Even after being informed they allege that this irrationality ( visible dead theory) is the official teaching of the Catholic Church.
Whatever be their motivations, to intentionally misrepresent facts, is irresponsible.
 
They represent legal institutions who claim that my religion teaches that those saved with 'a ray of the Truth', 'seeds of the Word' , who are now  deceased persons living in Heaven, can be  seen on the streets of England. They would have to be seen to be exceptions to the traditional teaching which says all need to enter the Church for salvation.
 
This is irrational. It is a falsehood and misrepresents my religion. The teachings of the Catholic Church have been constant since the time of Jesus up to  the present times.
I have informed the 'accused' so many times through e-mails of posts on this blog. Yet the Prefects of the Pontifical Councils and Congregations do not issue a clarification.

Cardinal Vince Nicols, President of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England Wales  acts as if he can change Catholic teaching, by claiming that we Catholics can see ghosts in real life. As a 'defendent', I would defend my Catholic Faith against what could be malafide propaganda.It is malafide in the sense that there is silent acquiescence to error, false misrepresentation etc even after they (cardinals at the Vatican,Cardinal Vince Nicols,Bishop Michael Campbell,Bishop of Lancaster,England, the University of Bristol,Federation International Una Voce etc) have been informed.
 
I think many other Catholics , like me, are offended and would demand that a simple statement be issued, clarifying, ' there are no known exceptions in the present times to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II ( AG 7 says -all need faith and baptism for salvation.'All' signifies no exceptions).Catholics cannot see the deceased on earth.'
 
This statement in different forms (answer to TWO QUESTIONS etc) has been made by an Archbishop, a Catholic lay apologist,a  Dean of Theology and a Dean of Philosophy in Rome's universities and many Catholic priests in Rome.There statements have been posted on this blog.This is the teaching of Catholic magisterial documents and not just my personal opinion.
-Lionel Andrades
 

Joseph Shaw responds but only about being rude,boring and spam  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/joseph-shaw-responds-but-only-about.html#links

Cardinal Nicols and FIUV are telling a falsehood. Why do rank and file Catholics have to accept it? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/cardinal-nicols-and-fiuv-are-telling.html#links

Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce official has nothing to say

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/foederatio-internationalis-una-voce.html#links

Winter for the Catholic Faith in England

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/winter-for-catholic-faith-in-england.html#links

Traditionalists do not want to affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Another wasted conference in England today.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/traditionalists-do-not-want-to-affirm.html#links

Bishop Athanasius Schneider and priests who offer the Traditional Latin Mass in Engand : two questions

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/bishop-athanasius-schneider-and-priests.html 

Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue,Vatican rejects Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) : all need faith and baptism for salvation

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/pontifical-council-for-interreligious.html

 
PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY INDICATES POPES, SAINTS IN HERESY

Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity claims Pope Pius XII condemned the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus :suggests those in invincible ignorance are explicitly known to us and so contradicts the dogma
 
 
 

G-8 CARDINALS,CARDINALS BRAZ AND KOCH, USCCB, FR.FIDENZIO VOLPI MUST SET AN EXAMPLE FOR THE SSPX AND ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT CLAIMS OF BEING ABLE TO SEE THE DEAD

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/g-8-cardinalscardinals-braz-and-koch.html#links 


Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J and Pope Benedict XVI made a factual error : Analysis

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/04/cardinal-luiz-ladaria-sj-and-pope.html#links

Bishop Michael Campbell of Lancaster closes Protect the Pope news service and forum http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/04/bishop-michael-campbell-of-lancaster.html#links

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/04/deacon-nick-donnelllys-ccrs-course.html#links

If Lancaster Diocese did not use this irrationality Bishop Michael Campbell would have to affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus in accord with the Catechism (1993) and Vatican Council II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/04/if-lancaster-did-not-use-this.html#links 
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/04/bishop-michael-campbell-and-lancaster.html#links

 
Vatican website for clergy promotes 'theology of religions', Kung and Knitter : claims Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for the same interpretation of the dogma as the popes and saints
 
 
___________________________________________________________________________________
 
 
 
October 16, 2013
DEAN OF THEOLOGY AT ST. ANSELM SAYS THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
 

 Friday, October 7, 2011
LEGIONARY OF CHRIST PRIEST FR.RAFAEL PASCUAL AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/10/legionary-of-christ-priest-frrafael.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 

 
CATHOLIC PRIESTS IN ROME AGREE WITH FR.LEONARD FEENEY: THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OF
 

JOHN MARTIGIONI SAYS VATICAN COUNCIL II IS IN AGREEMENT WITH EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS AND THE SYLLABUS: WHEN WILL THE SSPX AND THE VATICAN CURIA ACKNOWLEDGE IT?

Implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martigioni


_________________________________________________________