Thursday, July 10, 2014

Would LG 16 be a visible exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2014 ?

St.Thomas Aquinas held the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It was the same as the Church Councils. It did not mention any known exceptions.
St.Thomas also mentioned the man in the forest in invincible ignorance to whom God would send a preacher and he could be saved. The man in the forest who is saved today in invincible ignorance would be known only to God. We do not and cannot know who is saved as such in 2014. The person saved in invincible ignorance is not a visible, known exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
So how would the New St.Thomas Aquinas Institute interpret Vatican Council II ? Would LG 16( invincible ignorance) be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
If you say that LG 16 is not a known exception to the dogmatic teaching then this would be rational.
 
Then the question arises ,'Did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make a mistake in assuming that being saved in invincible ignorance was a known exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney ?'. If there are no visible cases there are no exceptions? Hypothetical cases are possibilities but they are not exceptions? If they do not exist in our reality they cannot be an exception to all needing the baptism of water or salvation.
-Lionel Andrades
 
Rational Interpretation of Vatican Council II : hope for the Franciscans of the Immaculate
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/rational-interpretation-of-vatican.html#links
 

  

There is no known exception in 2014 to 'Feeneyism'- all need the baptism of water for salvation.There are no known,visible exceptions

Father Feeney denied the "soul of the Church";
(???)
he said that one could not be joined to the "soul of the Church" except through the actual reception of sacramental Baptism.
 (Agreed theologically)
His theology developed into the notion that everyone in Paradise, without exception, had the character of sacramental Baptism.
(Correct.I agree with him)
 
 
This is just fine as a theological opinion, but it is not a dogma of the Catholic Faith.
(Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence etc??)
 
Question is, "Are there individuals in Heaven who lack the character of sacramental Baptism?" It's a "Yes" or "No" question. Agreed?
 
Lionel:
All who are in Heaven are there with the baptism of water.
 
 
 
 
Regardless of whether such folks are "visible" or not, are they, in fact, there? Yes or no? Father Feeney said, "No"; the SSPX says "Yes." Both are theological opinions; the Church has never defined such.
Yes or No these cases are not physically visible to us on earth.It is hypothetical for us and known only to God.So it is not an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation and there are no visible exceptions. Example in 2014 it would not be a known exception to 'Feeneyism'.
So there is no known exception in 2014 to Feeneyism i.e all need the baptism of water for salvation.There  are no known exceptions.
-Lionel Andrades

French police foil jihad plot targeting Eiffel Tower, Louvre, nuke plant

By on Jul 9, 2014 


Eiffel Tower

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/07/french-police-foil-jihad-plot-targeting-eiffel-tower-louve-nuke-plant


 

Nigerian Christian leader: West ignores Boko Haram’s Islamic motives

NicholasOkohFor a long time, Okoh said, “the United States did not come out to say anything about Boko Haram. They kept talking about economic problems, [saying] that Boko Haram is fighting because of economic problems. That is not true … The United States deliberately ignored the fundamental issues of religious ideology.” Indeed — and even worse: the mainstream media in the U.S. was filled for awhile with articles about how what Boko Haram did had nothing to do with Islam.

Wrong diagnoses lead to the application of remedies that won’t work, and the problem will persist.
“Boko Haram’s Islamic motives ‘ignored,’” by David Roach, Baptist Press, July 9, 2014:
ABUJA, Nigeria – The United States and other western nations have ignored the religious motivation of the Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram and must understand the theological dynamics in Nigeria in order to curb terrorism in the western African country, the archbishop of Nigeria’s Anglican Church told Baptist Press.
For a long time, “the United States did not come out to say anything about Boko Haram,” Nicholas Okoh, primate of the Church of Nigeria, said in an interview. “They kept talking about economic problems, [saying] that Boko Haram is fighting because of economic problems. That is not true … The United States deliberately ignored the fundamental issues of religious ideology.”
Based in northeast Nigeria, Boko Haram has killed an estimated 10,000 people since 2002 with an escalation in murders recently. In April the group received wide media coverage for kidnapping 273 schoolgirls, 219 of whom remain missing and may be enslaved as wives of Muslim men. Loosely translated, the phrase Boko Haram means “Western education is sinful.”
Nicholas Okoh, a leader in the worldwide conservative Anglican movement, urged the U.S. government to support the Nigerian government “strongly” in its fight against terrorism so that it can “combat Boko Haram to a standstill” and force peaceful negotiation.
Boko Haram’s two central beliefs are that western-style education should be abolished from Nigeria and that the nation should be governed by Sharia law, an Islamic system of government based on the Koran that imposes, among other things, harsh penalties on Muslims who convert to Christianity. According to one estimate, Nigeria is 50 percent Muslim and 48 percent Christian.
The U.S. State Department’s 2013 announcement to the media that it had designated Boko Haram as a terrorist organization said only that it is “a Nigeria-based militant group with links to al-Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb.” The announcement contained no further mention of Islam or Sharia but did reference “the legitimate concerns of the people of northern Nigeria.”
Okoh, a leader in the worldwide conservative Anglican movement, acknowledged northern Nigeria faces economic problems and injustice, but he said such problems are not isolated to one region of the country. In addition, Boko Haram has never expressed economic motivations or claimed to be fighting for justice in northern Nigeria, he said.
“Some of the economic facilities, employment opportunities are visible in the northeast,” Okoh said. “Boko Haram has destroyed all of them. So if they were actually interested in economic progress, they would not go around destroying what offered some economic succor to our people.”
Okoh urged the U.S. government to support the Nigerian government “strongly” in its fight against terrorism so that it can “combat Boko Haram to a standstill” and force peaceful negotiation. He admitted though that negotiation cannot occur if Boko Haram continues to demand only universal Sharia law and an end to western-style education.
Among the indications that negotiation may be impossible are Boko Haram’s statement that it will not talk to Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan unless he converts to Islam and the group’s statement that the government has no authority to offer it amnesty, Okoh said. Boko Haram regards itself as the reigning power with authority to offer the government amnesty, he added.
Okoh also said neighboring countries must stop funding Boko Haram.
Currently the Nigerian government is using “moderated force” without conducting a full scale military operation against the terrorist group, Okoh said. The goal, he noted, is to determine Boko Haram’s agenda more fully and draw them into discussions.
Meanwhile, Nigeria’s Christians have prayed, fasted and held meetings with their Muslim neighbors. But neither Christians nor moderate Muslims have been able to curtail Boko Haram violence, Okoh said.
“God created every human being equal and free,” he said. “Boko Haram tries to deny people freedom – freedom of worship and freedom of the expression of their religion. This is not what God asks us to do. Religion is a gift of God, and people should be allowed to express it. Therefore, forceful abduction of people or forceful conversion is outside God’s will … God does not force us to follow Him. He only makes us willing to follow Him.”
No one should think Boko Haram is serving God, Okoh said, especially in light of its kidnapping of children.
“Children are precious in the sight of God,” he said. “And to go to a school and abduct children and take them into the bush and to divert the course of their destiny is something we think is against God.”
Okoh asked Christians in America and other western nations to understand Nigeria’s plight and call on their governments to help.
“Christians in the West first of all need to encourage western governments to see Boko Haram as a very deadly terrorist organization…,” Okoh said. “And they also need to support the government of Nigeria in every way possible so that the government will be able to combat Boko Haram.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/07/nigerian-christian-leader-west-ignores-boko-harams-islamic-motives

In Canada, defending girls from Islamic honor killings is “racist”

In Canada, defending girls from Islamic honor killings is “racist”

By on Jul 9, 2014 at 7:41am in Canada, honor killing
Over at Breitbart, my AFDI colleague Pamela Geller explains what happened when we tried to help girls threatened by honor killing in Canada: “In Canada, Defending Girls from Islamic Honor Killings Is ‘Racist,’” by Pamela Geller, Breitbart, July 7, 2014:
In Canada today, helping Muslim girls is “racist.” Edmonton Transit last year caved in to Islamic supremacist demands and took down bus ads sponsored by my organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), offering help to Muslim girls who were living in fear of honor killing. But we are fighting back. We’ve initiated a court action to defend free speech – which is supposed to be protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Nowadays it seems increasingly in both the U.S. and Canada that free speech is only allowed to those whose positions are popular. But the whole purpose of free speech, the foundation of any free society, is to protect people who tell unpopular but necessary truths. If any group has the power to censor messages it doesn’t like, society is no longer free.
The Canadian media certainly hate our message of hope and freedom. The media in Canada called our ads “dishonorable,” “controversial,” and, above all, “racist.” It’s “dishonorable” and “controversial” and “racist” to save lives? Under the Sharia, yes, it is. And so in Edmonton, Sikh Councillor Amarjeet Sohi, who should know better than to carry water for the Islamic supremacists who oppressed his people for centuries, ordered officials to take down our ads immediately. They complied – even though vicious blood libels against Israel are just fine and have run on transit systems across Canada.
Apparently Muslims complained about our ads. Why? Is this how the Canadian Muslim community responds to the desperate circumstances of Muslim girls living in devout Muslim homes? They deny, obfuscate, and dissemble. The Muslim community protects the idea of honor in Islam, while smearing and libeling as “racists” the truth tellers coming to the aid of these girls.
Honor killing is a grim reality that is largely ignored, and girls are suffering as a result. In Canada in 2007, 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez was strangled to death by her father and brother for refusing to wear hijab. And two years later, Mohammad Shafia murdered his first wife and three daughters in an another honor killing. Our ad depicted “Muslim Girls Honor Killed By Their Families,” with photos of Aqsa and six other honor killing victims. It read: “Is your family threatening you? Is there a fatwa on your head? We can help: go to FightforFreedom.us.”
That’s objectionable?
In cases of honor killings, Muslim fathers kill their daughters for real or imagined sexual indiscretions that have supposedly dishonored the family. Nothing is done because political correctness prevents us from speaking about the problem honestly. Muslims commit 91 percent of honor killings worldwide,and Islamic law stipulates no penalty for a parent who kills his child.
Honor violence, honor murder, is not just a tribal custom; it’s Islamic law. A manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that “retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right.” However, “not subject to retaliation” is “a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring” (‘Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2). This is effectively saying that a Muslim father who kills his child for “honor” faces no legal penalty under Islamic law.
It is imperative that we identify why honor killings happen: “Why does it matter that the practice of honor killing has Islamic sanction?” writes Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch. “Because if the roots of honor killing are never discussed and always ignored, the practice will never stop. Until the Islamic roots of the practice are discussed openly and human rights groups begin calling for reform, honor killings will continue in the Islamic world – and in Muslim communities in the West.”
Girls threatened with honor killing need and deserve protection. The horror of honor killings is given the imprimatur of the West by the enemedia’s complicit silence and the government’s unwillingness to say a critical word about Sharia, no matter how savagely it is applied anywhere in the world. The media goes to extraordinary lengths to whitewash these crimes and disconnect the Islamic motive from these murders. The “feminists” look away and pretend that it is outside the realm of women’s rights. They are shills for Islam. Shame on all of you for failing women, children, and girls worldwide.
AFDI’s new honor-killing awareness campaign was designed to help young girls living in fear of the Islamic honor code.
We are not giving up. We are challenging their decision in Edmonton and will run the ads elsewhere in Canada. The fact that Islamic supremacist groups are so threatened by these ads shows how desperately they are needed. Clearly we struck a nerve; these Muslim groups don’t want people speaking out against honor killing, so we have to speak out louder than ever.
Please help us. We have to make a stand. Please donate via PayPal. The American Freedom Defense Initiative is a 501c3 organization, and your contribution is tax deductible. We can’t do it without your help. Remember: what happens in Canada will soon enough happen in the U.S. Canada is just farther down the same road we are on, the road of appeasement and capitulation to Islamic supremacists.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/07/in-canada-defending-girls-from-islamic-honor-killings-is-racist
 

Rational Interpretation of Vatican Council II : hope for the Franciscans of the Immaculate

Here are four approaches to the interpretation of Vatican Council II and other magisterial texts.
1.Two Questions.
2.Left Hand Side or Right Hand Side Column ( or the blue column and the red column)
3.Feeneyism or Cushingism.
4.With the use of a false premise or without it.
This is important for the Franciscans of
the Immaculate. Since there can be only one rational interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.This interpretation also agrees with Tradition.
So they are in a position to affirm Tradition and also Vatican Council II. They can have their cake and eat it too.
It is Pope Francis and the Vatican Curia who cannot cite Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition, unless, they are using an irrational interpretation which results in a non traditional conclusion.It's a mistake.
So the FFI and the SSPX are in a position to tell the Vatican that they accept Vatican Council II, knowing :-
1.The dead are not visible to us in 2014 (Two Questions).
2.They use the left hand column in the interpretation.
3. They use Feeneyism in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and other magisterial documents.
4.They avoid the False Premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council.
 
 
1.
 How would you respond to these TWO QUESTIONS ?


1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2014 ?
2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ?
________________________________________________
 

2.
Would you interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side or left hand side column?

 
LEFT HAND SIDE COLUMN - RIGHT HAND SIDE COLUMNAll salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3),seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) etc are either:
implicit                       or     explicit for us.
hypothetical              or      known in reality.
invisible                     or      visible in the flesh.
dejure ( in principle) or       defacto ( in fact ).
subjective                  or       objective
So one can choose from the left hand side or the right hand side column.

 


If the right hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition in general on other religions and Christian communities and churches. There are known exceptions in 2014 to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Cathlic Church. The dead- saved are visible.
If the left hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus, nor Tradition on other religions and Christian communities and churches.
Most people interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side values.
So the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance was never ever an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, unless one is using the right hand side column.There were and are no known exceptions


._____________________________________
 
3.
Would you interpret Vatican Council II according to Feenyism or Cushingism. Cushingism is irrational.


1.
 VATICAN COUNCIL II
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel...-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II.
FEENEYISM (rational): The orange text does not contradict the text in yellow since the cases referred to are defacto.They are not known to us, personally.We do not know and cannot know these cases. So they are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
CUSHINGISM( irrational): The orange text contradicts the text in yellow .It is assumed that thse cases are known to us in the present times. We can physically see the dead who are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
 
2.
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.-Catechism of the Catholic Church 846

FEENEYISM (rational): The orange text does not contradict the text in yellow since the cases referred to are defacto.They are not known in reality. They not known to us, personally .We do not know and cannot know these cases. So they are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
CUSHINGISM( irrational): The orange text contradicts the text in yellow .It is assumed that thse cases are known to us in the present times. It is presumed that we can see the dead who are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.This is  irrational.
 -Lionel Andrades

_____________________________________
4.
 
You can interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise ( we can physically see the dead).Or it can be interpreted without the false premise. The false premise makes the conclusion irrational.


False Premise : We can physically see , know a Protestant in 2014 saved as such.
Conclusion:
Cases of imperfect communion with the Church are visible to us so they are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
Without the False Premise: UR 3 refers to a possibility known only to God.It is not visible us.



 Since it is unknown to us it cannot be an exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation.
 
False Premise: We can physically see, know a Jew or Hindu who is 'good and holy' and is saved in 2014.
Conclusion:
Cases of good and holy non Catholics who are saved or going to be saved, are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
Without the False Premise: NA 2 is a possibility , a hypothetical case. It is irrelevant to the dogma on salvation.It is not visble to us.
 
False Premise: Those saved with the ' seeds of the Word' (AG 11 etc) are personally known to us. We can meet them.
Conclusion: Since these cases are personally known to us , they are visible exceptions to the dogma outside the church there is no salvation.
Without the False Premise: There are no known exceptions to the traditional teaching on other religions.NA 2 is not one of them.There are no cases physically visible to us in 2014.
___________________________________________
 
-Lionel Andrades 

NOT a Catholic in Good Standing? Really? -Michael Voris

Shawn Weed's Hell Testimony (Full)