Monday, January 12, 2015

No denial from Edward Pentin

I  e-mailed Edward Pentin. I sent him the blog post Edward Pentin refuses to touch this subject again, since he probably got the usual threats from the Left : Rorate Caeili pulls down comments.
A Staff writer and columnist at the National Catholic Register  he has no comments.No denial.
His editor probably convinced him not to again touch this subject.
So he will allow Catholics to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.LG 16 refers to visible cases for him, Dan Burke and Tom Wehner. They will not help Catholics see the error since there is a threat tho the newspaper.
The Catholic journalist is in contact with cardinals at the Vatican. He simply has to ask them 'How can the baptism of desire be an exception to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney, when we do not know of any case of the baptism of desire in real life ?'
'How can invisible for us cases be exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church in 2015 for salvation, with the baptism of water?'
'So how can being saved in 'inculpable ignorance'(AG7) or with an 'implicit desire'(AG 7) be an exception, objectively in 2015, to all needing 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) ?'
'Did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 first make this mistake and was it carried over into Vatican Council II(AG 7etc)?'
'So can the SSPX and the Franciscans of the Immaculte avoid this error and interpret Vatican Council II ? Would it be acceptable to the CDF/Ecclesia Dei?'
But this is a sensitive subject for many people and the Editors of the National Catholic Regtister would not like him to write about it.So he avoids this subject even though it is central to our understanding of Vatican Council II.
It is a subject he is also is not fully familiar with.Since when he did ask Cardinal Gerhard Muller and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, in different interviews,  about extra ecclesiam nulla salus, he could not see the error, in their response.1 They were using the visible-dead inference.They got away easily.
Pentin now in a sense is off the hook. He does not have to stay that he knows that the Holy Office 1949 made a mistake, the same wrong inference is being used by the political Left in the interpretation of Vatican Council and that it is irrational and heretical.
How can he say Vatican Council II is Feeneyite and expect the editors of the NCR to accept this ? He has a similar problem as Patrick Archbold.
So he does not ask the important questions on the dogma and Vatican Council II and keeps his job at the Register.-Lionel Andrades
June 5, 2013
Archbishop Gerhard Muller was using the false premise : here is the proof!
Muller-Fellay Meeting: Cardinal Muller will not accept Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and he wants the SSPX, FFI to use the false premise with the Council and Catechism ?
Meeting needed between Ecclesia Dei/CDF, SSPX,CMRI and others: all agree that the baptism of desire is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus


Vatican clarification needed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not explicit exceptions to the dogma and no magisterial text makes this claim.


Patrick Archbold writes on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, while rejecting the dogma and so Dan Burke and Tom Weiner allow him to keep his job at the NCR/EWTN

If Patrick Archbold said that the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake could he still write for the EWTN's National Catholic Register where 'liberty of expression', so important for the Charlie Hebdo issue, is restricted.
If the Holy Office made a factual mistake, with no historical precedent; with no traditional source to support it's view, then Fr.Leonard Feeney would be correct.
Can Pat Archbold say that Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct and the Holy Office 1949 was wrong?
Would EWTN/NCR still employ him as a columnist?
They would not!
Tom Weiner and Dan Burke at the NCR would have to contend with the political Left and their threats.Remember how they removed Patrick Archbold's post calling for a reconciliation with the SSPX.
Archbold holds the liberal position on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is acceptable policy at EWTN.
Whatever ones misconceptions on Fr.Leonard Feeney, the issue still is, how does Patrick Arhbold interpret Vatican Council II ? Lumen Gentium 16 (saved in invincible ignorance) is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus for him? Yes! It would have to be ( even if it wasn't) if he wants to be employed by EWTN/NCR. There are  exceptions to the dogma, for  the Archbishop,  where the NCR is situated.
The Register employees cannot say LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, etc refer to possibilities and not defacto exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This would be Feeneyism. They cannot say that Vatican Council II is Feeneyite ( even though it is).This would be anti-Semitic or whatever, for the powers that be.
Can you imagine Patrick Madrid and the other apologists on EWTN saying the Holy Office in 1949 made an objective mistake ? Unthinkable!
For me Feeneyism is still the official teaching of the Church on salvation, according to magisterial documents (AG 7,CCC 846,1257, Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 etc) .There are no known exceptions to the dogma.
But this is not the view of the archbishop where EWTN is situated. He would have Patrick Archbold banned just as they removed  Fr.John Corapi.Even Fr.Corapi's former community SOLT are not going to say that the Holy Office made a mistake, if they want to stay in a  diocese.
So Patrick Archbold writes on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, while rejecting the dogma ( which is absolutist for him) and keeps his job at the NCR/EWTN.
-Lionel Andrades

Tauran does not condemn the blasphemy against the Trinity in Charlie Hebdo

Card. Tauran: Le religioni sono la soluzione, non il problemaWhen will Cardinal Tauran in his 'political career' tell Muslims that Vatican Council II (AG 7) says they all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ?
So those who blow themself , along with innocent Muslims, will get a frightening surprise , in the next world.The cardinal did not warn them.One can only be a martyr by dieing for Christ and with faith in Him in the Catholic Church.
The Muslims in the Charlie Hebdo attack  will be judged and Jesus will deny those who denied Him on earth by not formally entering the Catholic Church.
Without 'faith and baptism' and without the forgiveness of mortal sins, there is no happy future for them, after death.
Muslims are unaware of this truth and Cardinal Tauran, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Vatican does not want to tell them or announce this.
In an interview with Avvenire (Jan 10,2015) he has said that a better understanding among religions and education is the unique strategy to end terrorism.He is referring to the political Left concept of inter religious dialogue and not the proclamation of the truths of the Church on salvation and Hell.
Why doesn't he educate them on Vatican Council II and outside the Church there is no salvation?
He has not criticised the blasphemous cover page cartoon on the Trinity in an earlier edition of the French magazine but in the interview (Avvenire p.7) he praises 'liberty of expression'. He does not express the truths of the Catholic Faith on the salvation of Muslims. Does he have the liberty of expression to do this?
Cardinal Tauran does not condemn the blasphemy on the Trinity in the magazine Charlie Hebdo.He  simply says we cannot laugh at everything in the magazine. There are religious  feelings which must be respected.He does not state that the Christian cartoonists would also be oriented to Hell for their blasphemy.In a Catholic Confessional State they would be executed.Tauran instead supports the separation of Church and state imposed by the Left.
The political left do not respect the religious feelings of Catholics and so the Faith is not allowed to be taught in Catholic schools and universities in Italy etc. So what education in schools and universities in inter religious dialogue is he referring to ?
-Lionel Andrades

The dogma says all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation and we do not know any one who is saved without 'faith and baptism'

Posted as a comment by Nick, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus: A Question of Emphasis
The idea that everyone must be Catholic is heresy! For that denies the validity of Protestant baptisms.
I am not certain what you advocating for the RCC to do. Re-instate the Inquisition? Torture & burn Protestants, Jews, & Muslims at the stake? Deny that people have the inherent right of freedom of religion & worship? Deny Jews, Muslims and Protestants the right to worship? Would you make the entire world an RC theocracy?
I keep coming back to the same rational point.The dogma says all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation and we do not know any one who is saved without 'faith and baptism'.
So there could be ca ase of a Protestant who was saved with the baptism of water.This  hypothetical person would be in Heaven, for some people, in a discussion.However we would all have to agree rationally, that this case is not relevant to the dogma or an exception to the Feeneyite version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. 
I am not certain what you advocating for the RCC to do. Re-instate the Inquisition?
There would be an inquisition if there were Catholic Confessional states in the present times. Since there are socialist, liberal confessional states, the inquisition is still there but  is conducted with different values.
Torture & burn Protestants, Jews, & Muslims at the stake?
This is what is happening to Catholics,Muslims,Protestants and other religious in secular, communist, leftist confessional states today.There is the freedom of expression for  evil values and Christians are restricted. They are not burnt, but are killed and penalised in other ways.
Would you make the entire world an RC theocracy?
The world has to be a theocracy which is pro-God or a 'cracy' which is pro-Satan.There are only two options. The present political system with their 'dogma' of 'freedom of expression' promotes abortion, free sex, un -natural marriage, euthanasia, atheism and other Satanic values.One cannot support the political Left and also be a good Catholic. We have to choose between God and the one who opposes God.
-Lionel Andrades

Vatican Council II is Feeneyite. One could say, with reference to salvation and the dogma, it is 'absolutist'.

Personally, I am all for a more forceful presentation of EENS. I used the Feeney line as shorthand for an absolutist position, but perhaps that is unfair-Patrick Archbold
 Pat Archbold
How can there be a 'non absolutist' position ? We do not know any one saved outside the Church over the last 100 years and no magisterial document supports Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani when he assumes that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma. There was no precedent. Since no Church document before 1949 states that the baptism of desire refers to known cases,which are exceptions to the dogma. Nor is it directly said that these cases are exceptions. Even Vatican Council II does not make this claim.
This error is there in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 when Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger implied every one defacto needs the baptism of water for salvation but some do not.The Catechism comes with an inference.CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contradiction and is heresy. The error comes from the Marchetti document.
So a non absolutist position would be heresy .It would be a break with the dogma as it was defined by three Church Councils.
It would also be a break with Vatican Council II (AG 7) which says all need faith and baptism for salvation. All means - no exceptions.
LG 16,LG 8,NA 2,UR 3 etc are not exceptions to the dogma. Vatican Council II is Feeneyite. One could say, with reference to salvation and the dogma, it is 'absolutist'.
-Lionel Andrades

Patrick Archbold cannot defend his position on the Dallas blog


Patrick Archbold who do you know who is saved outside the Catholic Church over the last five years?

Pat ArchboldAccording to reports on the Internet Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson, the American apologist John Martigioni and the Benedictine priest in Rome, Fr.P. Stefano Visintin OSB, Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Pontifical University St.Anselm agree say there are no visible exceptions to the Feeneyite version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
There are many reports online which state that we do not know and cannot know any one who will be saved this year without the baptism of water. So in reality there are no exceptions to the traditional interpretation.
The other important point is that before 1949 no Church document says there were known exceptions to the the dogma. This has to be wrongly inferred. Mystici Corporis and the Council of Trent only mention the possibility of being saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.These magisterial documents do not state that these cases are known to us or are exceptions to the dogma or must occur without the baptism of water.This is has to be inferred. It is irrational and yet this was the teaching of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. Patrick Archbold has  not commented on this.

He writes 'Being saved without the Catholic Church is like shooting par with just a putter and a 7-iron. Possible? I suppose. But not the preferred method when your eternal life depends upon it.' 1. Really? Who do you know who is saved without the Catholic Church over the last five years or more.
-Lionel Andrades