Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Clarification -Michael Voris

Archbishop Lefebvre on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus according to Mundabor- he made a mistake

Posted by

With every year it becomes clearer what a great man he was: Marcel Lefebvre.
I am more and more persuaded that if one wants to read contemporary sources of undoubted Catholic orthodoxy, the SSPX is the place where to look.
For this reason, whenever you think or suspect that something is not orthodox enough, or might be “nuChurch” under the appearance of orthodoxy, it is never wasted time to look what the SSPX says on the matter. These are people willing to be excommunicated to remain faithful to Truth, and there is no way they are going to compromise.
Let us take, for example, the “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” question – so often misused by misinformed – or disingenuous – Protestants to shoot at the Church and criticise her alleged lack of common sense – and let us see what Archbishop Lefebvre had to say on the matter.
From the “Open Letter to Confused Catholics”, available online in English from the SSPX Asia, we read the following:
First, the late Archbishop sets the main points of the question:
The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it. You have often heard it said, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”–a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe.
Yet nothing, in fact, has changed; nothing can be changed in this area. Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One. There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others. To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces. No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.
Then, he proceeds to explain how proper Catholic doctrine is rightly interpreted:
Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian’s formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.(Lionel:Wrong there is only one way of receiving it. De facto there is only the baptism of water. We cannot administer the baptism of desire to any one. We do not know any one who will be saved this year with the baptism of blood and so will not need the baptism of water. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre assumes that the baptism of desire and baptism of blood are explicit for us and so are exceptions to the traditional intepretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Otherwise why would he mention it? It is relevant only if it is explicit.He has accepted the wrong inference of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.)
Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire.(Lionel: The baptism of desire refers to a catechumen who sought the baptism of water and was denied before he received it. For us this case is hypothetical. It is always invisible for us and known only to God. We cannot know any such case in 2014 and so it cannot be an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.)  This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.(Lionel: And we do not know who they are in 2014.)
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. (Lionel: If they are saved in their religion by Jesus and the Church how is this relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Since this would be a theoretical case for us. Hypothetical cases cannot be exceptions in 2014 to the literal and traditional interpretation of the dogma according to the Church Councils, popes, saints and Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston) There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state theTruth.(Lionel: He is correct here.There are only Catholics in Heaven)
Finally, in case you should think there is a rather easy way to salvation outside the Church, he takes all illusions away from you:
But at the cost of what difficulties do people in those countries where Christianity has not penetrated come to receive baptism by desire! Error is an obstacle to the Holy Ghost. This explains why the Church has always sent missionaries into all countries of the world, why thousands of them have suffered martyrdom. If salvation can be found in any religion, why cross the seas, why subject oneself to unhealthy climates, to a harsh life, to sickness and an early death? From the martyrdom of St. Stephen onwards (the first to give his life for Christ, and for this reason his feast is the day after Christmas), the Apostles set out to spread the Good News throughout the Mediterranean countries.
Would they have done this if one could be saved by worshipping Cybele or by the mysteries of Eleusis? Why did Our Lord say to them, “Go and preach the Gospel to all nations?”
Finally, a concrete example of how the post V II Church could be terribly wrong, and suffer the Truth to be substituted with heresy or worse by the work of the bishops themselves:
It is amazing that nowadays certain people want to let everyone find his own way to God according to the beliefs prevailing in his own “cultural milieu.” A bishop once told a priest who wanted to convert the little Muslims, “No, teach them to be good Muslims; that will be much better than making Catholics of them.”
Now please observe this:
1) This is straightforward, well explained, full of common sense and easy-to-grasp wisdom. Personally, I found that whenever you look for authentic Catholic answers, this is what you find.
2) This comes from a man of such unflinching orthodoxy( Lionel: It is not orthodoxy to infer that the dead-saved are visible exceptions to Tradition and then to use this same irrational inference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II to contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition. ) as to be able to suffer excommunication just a few years before death, for the sake of Truth.(Lionel: It is true Vatican Council II was being interpreted with an irrational premise which came from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. So he was correct about Vatican Council. However he did not know that the Council could have also been interpreted without the premise . The magisterium was of no help to him.They were not aware of the false premise being used in the interpretation.) You can think for yourself how probable it is this is not a fair and accurate representation of infallible Magisterium.
I have very often found that the critics of the SSPX love to criticise them based on preconceptions they have heard of – probably by some tambourine priest – and uncritically accepted. These people are seriously good, infinitely better Catholics than those priests and bishops calling them “schismatics”, or worse.
Irrespective of the final outcome of the SSPX-Vatican talks,(Lionel: The final outcome of the talks, the second round, depends upon understanding this error made by Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops and priests.) I would encourage everyone to inform themselves about the SSPX position (Lionel: It is irrational, non traditonal and heretical) on whatever matter, rather than indulging in criticism by hearsay.
You will discover they take their name very, very seriously.

-Lionel Andrades

If Louie Verrecchio answers the two questions frankly he would be at odds with the SSPX

Comments from Louie Verrecchio's blog Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican Council II.

A Catholic Thinker
Lionel, on the contrary, I am quite sure that there is nary an SSPX priest – or intelligent layman – incapable of responding to Feeneyism, or exactly whatever it is you’re here suggesting is the plain truth.
By Feeneyism I would refer to the Catholic traditional belief on there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and that all adults on earth need to have Catholic Faith and the baptism of water with no exception, to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are possibilities known only to God and are not known to us in the present times(2014) to be explict exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation.Hypothetical cases cannot be defacto exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.
 A Catholic Thinker
I also am not able to see your questions as sensible.
“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 ?” What, exactly, are you trying to ask, or assert? You are correct that we don’t generally “see dead people”, physically, saved or not.
Exactly. You have answered the question. I agree with you. We physically cannot see the dead.
A Catholic Thinker
I have no idea what you’re suggesting here.
 I am suggesting what you have correctly mentioned above.
A Catholic Thinker
 The Church has always – since Apostolic times – taught that baptism is necessary for salvation, that water baptism is the necessary means of baptism, and that two other forms exist: that of blood and that of desire
However this was the second question.
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 ?
Let me elaborate.
You have said that we cannot see any one on earth physically saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.These cases do not exist in our reality.
To be an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation there would have to be known cases, physically visible.Theoretical cases cannot be exceptions to the dogma.
Yet in the last Communique to Friends and Benefactors Bishop Bernard Fellay has assumed that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Vatican Council II.
The SSPX is also selling a book written by Fr.Francois Laisney in which he assumes that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma.In other words these cases are physically visible to us.
So if Louie answers the two questions frankly he would be at odds with others in the SSPX.
Lionel Andrades

No denial from Corrado Gnerre

Corrado Gnerre a good Italian apologist has not denied that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII has amade a wrong inference. It wrongly supposed that the baptism of desire and salvation in invincible ignorance were known to us in the present times (1949-2014). It concluded that these cases now in Heaven,were known exceptions in the present times to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Gnerre is a professor at the Legion of Christ's European University of Rome. At the Pontifical University Regina Apostolorum (UPRA) and the Pontifical Seminary International Maria Mater Ecclesia (PIMME), of the Legion of Christ in Rome, the same irrationality is taught. I was a seminarian at PIMME and studied philosophy at UPRA. I could name the professors who inferred that the baptism of desire is visible to us and so refer to explicit exceptions to the dogma.
The same mistake is made in other pontifical seminaries and universities in Rome.
It is which this irrationality that Vatican Council II, emerges as a break with tradition. Lumen Gentium 16 (visible to us) contradicts the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.Lumen Gentium 8 (elements of sanctification and truth) allegedly found outside the visible limits of the Church(outside of faith and the baptism of water), are assumed, to be seen on earth.
Unitatis Redintigratio 3 (imperfect communion with the Church) is interpreted by liberals like Cardinal Walter Kasper as referring to salvation known among Protestants, who are not members of the Catholic Church. In other words, these cases are known to them in 2014.So they are a break with the dogma of exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

With this irrationality Cardinal Luiz Ladaria SJ assumed , in two documents of the International Theological Commission, that there is known salvation outside the Catholic Church. So for him the Catholic Church no more has ecclesiology which is exclusive on salvation.There is no more exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church since he knows someone in 2014 who has received salvation without the baptism of water. He was  promoted to the office of the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.The priest was created a cardinal, after this new discovery, which is really old Cushingism.
He bases his theology on the error made ​​in the Letter of the Holy Office. With the false premise (the dead in Heaven are visible on earth).He has approved a new theology, which is a break with tradition.
He also refers to Lumen Gentium 16 as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Lumen Gentium 16 though does not say that these cases are visible to us or that they are exceptions to the dogma on salvation. This is a personal inference of his. It is irrational and not mentioned in the text of the Second Vatican Council.
Corrado Gnerre did not correct the error of Cardinal Kaspar and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria. The same irrational interpretation of Vatican II, is made at the Legion of Christ universities and seminaries
.-Lionel Andrades

Corrado Gnerre insegna in una Legione di Cristo universitaria a Roma, dove tutti fanno lo stesso errore


Nessuna negazione da Corrado Gnerre

Corrado Gnerre un buon apologista italiano non ha negato che la Lettera del Sant'Uffizio 1949 durante il pontificato di Papa Pio XII fare una inferenza sbagliata.Supposto erroneamente che il battesimo di desiderio e salvezza  nell'ignoranza invincibile erano noti a noi nel tempi attuali(2014). Poi  concluso che questi casi in cielo, erano note eccezioni nei tempi presenti, alla tradizionale interpretazione del dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. salus.
Gnerre è un professore della Università Europea di Roma di communita religioso Legione di Christo. Alla Università Pontificia Regina Apostolorum  (UPRA) e il Seminario Pontificio Internazionale Maria Mater Ecclesia (PIMME), di Legione di Christo a Roma,  la stessa irrazionalità è istruzione normale. Ero un seminarista a PIMME e studiato Filosofia presso UPRA. Posso nominare i professori che presumono che il battesimo di desiderio sono visibili a noi e così sono eccezioni esplicite per il dogma.

Lo stesso errore è fatto in altri seminari  e università ontificiale di Roma.
E 'con questa irrazionalità che il Concilio Vaticano II, emerge come una rottura con la Tradizione. Lumen Gentium 16 (visibile a noi) contraddice il dogma sulla salvezza esclusiva nella Chiesa Cattolica.Lumen Gentium  8 (elementi di santificazione e di verità) avrebbe trovato al di fuori della Chiesa, sono considerati visibile nella carne.
Unitatis Redintigratio  3 (imperfetta comunione con la Chiesa) è interpretato dai liberali come il Cardinale Walter Kasper come riferito alla salvezza noto tra i Protestanti, che non sono membri della Chiesa Cattolica. In altre parole questi casi sono noti a voi  nel 2014.Quindi sono una rottura con il dogma sulla salvezza esclusiva nel Chiesa Cattolica.
Con questa irrazionalita  Cardinale Luiz Ladaria SJ ha assunto, in due documenti della Commissione Teologica Internazionale, che  conosciute salvezza al di fuori della Chiesa Cattolica. Così, per lui non c'è più una ecclesiologia esclusiva nella Chiesa Cattolica.Non c'e esclusiva salvezza perche lui conosce qualcuno che ha ricevuto salvezza senza il battesimo di aqua in 2014. È stato promosso alla Segretario della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede ed è stato creato cardinale,dopo questa nuova scoperta, che è davvero Cushingismo.
Egli fonda la sua teologia sulla errore difatto realizzata nella Lettera del Sant'Uffizio. Dopo la falsa premessa (dei morti essere visibile sulla terra).Ha approvato  una nuova teologia, che è una rottura con la Tradizione.
Si riferisce anche a Lumen Gentium 16 come una rottura con il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Ma Lumen Gentium 16 non dire che questi casi sono visibili  a noi o che siano eccezioni al dogma sulla salvezza. E 'la sua inferenza personale.E irrazionale e non menzionato nel Concilio Vaticano II.
Corrado Gnerre non ha corretto l'errore del Cardinale Kaspar e il Cardinale Luiz Ladaria. La stessa interpretazione irrazionale del Concilio Vaticano II, viene effettuato presso la Legione di Cristo università e dei seminari.
-Lionel Andrades

Corrado Gnerre insegna in una Legione di Cristo universitaria a Roma, dove tutti fanno lo stesso errore

No denial from Corrado Gnerre


Corrado Gnerre teaches at a Legion of Christ university in Rome where everyone makes the same mistake

Corrado Gnerre has not clarified that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are known only to God. They are not known to us  defacto ( in reality) in the present times.So they are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
He is using the wrong inference from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which assumes there are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma by Father Leonard Feeney of Boston. Corrado Gnerre teaches at a Legion of Christ university in Rome where all make the same mistake.
-Lionel Andrades
October 21, 2014

Corrado Gnerre insegna in una Legione di Cristo universitaria a Roma, dove tutti fanno lo stesso errore

Condemned Christian woman to take blasphemy case to top Pakistani court

Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN) -- A Christian woman sentenced to death for blasphemy in Pakistan plans to take her case to the country's highest court after a high court last week rejected her appeal, her attorney says.
Asia Bibi, a mother of five from Punjab province, was accused of defiling the name of the Prophet Mohammed during a 2009 argument with Muslim fellow field workers.
The workers had refused to drink from a bucket of water she had touched because she was not Muslim.
In November 2010, a Pakistani district court found Bibi guilty of blasphemy. The offense is punishable by death or life imprisonment, according to Pakistan's penal code, and Bibi was sentenced to hang.
Family waits to see if mother, accused of blasphemy, will be hanged" />" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" bgcolor="#000000" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="416" wmode="transparent" height="374">

Catholic Media Covering Catholic Stuff - Michael Voris