Thursday, February 5, 2015

Lifesites double standards uses the Marchetti inference to interpret Vatican Council II the same as  liberal Catholic bishops whom they cricize. It  is convenient, prudent and politically correct.They are  now  criticizing the Catholic Church and Bishop Lynch over the Terri Schiavo case. Steve Jalsevaz also commented on Relatio during the last Synod.
 Steve Jalsevac
Steve Jalsevac, Managing Director of Lifesites does not say that without the Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani inference Vatican Council II would be in accord with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This means Vatican Council II and the dogma defined three times would be saying that Steve Jalsevac a Protestant, is oriented towards Hell at the time of death, if he does not convert into the Catholic Church.
Also to affirm Feeneyism, which is the official teaching of the Catholic Church in magisterial documents interpreted without the Marchetti inference, would bring threats under leftist laws.They would be considered bigoted, racist, anti-Semitic etc.
So they will comment on the activities of the Catholic Church and present their traditional views while they affirm a non traditional, liberal view of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with reference to Vatican Council II.
Similarly they  reported that the Franciscans of the Immaculate were expected to accept Vatican Council II to be able to offer the Traditional Latin Mass. Lifesites never said that the priests of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate  had to endorse Vatican Council II with the irrational premise.This makes the Council a break with Tradition in general and the dogma in particular.
Catholics John Henry Weston and Hilary White interpret Church documents using the Marchetti inference.Without the Marchetti inference they would be Feeneyite and that would not be politically acceptable.
 Marcia per la Vita
For them it is O.K to be politically correct with the Left but they do not give the same privilege to Catholic bishops and the pope whom they criticize.In a few months they will be participating in a March for Life in Rome, along with other participants, with the same double standards.
Why should pro abortion politicians in the USA not receive the Eucharist and John Henry Weston and Hilary White receive the Eucharist at  Mass, when they cannot afirm a Catholic dogma in public ?
Lionel Andrades
The Catholic Church’s Terri Schiavo scandal
Vatican post contradicts Church teaching: why has it not been removed?
Pope Francis approved family synod’s controversial mid-term report before publication: synod chief

Diocese of Brescia still silent : Fr.Cavalcoli O.P confirms, it's a dogma!

I have been in correspondence with officials of the Office for Education, Schools and University of the Catholic diocese of Brescia, Italy.They still will not say that extra ecclesiam nulla salus is a dogma of the Church.

Meanwhile I have received an e-mail from Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli O.P yesterday saying that extra ecclesiam nulla salus is a dogma defined by the Council of Florence (1439-1442)
Fr. Raffele Maiolini the Director of this office will still not admit that it is a dogma.Initially he told me it is not a dogma. I sent the bishop of Brescia Mons.Luciano Monari an e-mail yesterday asking him the same question.
I have sent Fr.Cavalcoli's comment to them.-Lionel Andrades

February 4, 2015

Italian Director of the Office for Education, University and Schools in Brescia will still not say that extra ecclesiam nulla salus is a dogma

January 31, 2015
Fr.Raffaele Maiolini, Director of the Office for Education, University and Schools in Brescia, Italy says extra ecclesiam nulla salus is not a dogma but an aphorism

February 4, 2015
Direttore italiano dell'Ufficio per l'Istruzione, l'Università e Scuole a Brescia non sarà ancora dire che extra ecclesiam nulla salus è un dogma

Neither Michael Voris nor the Archbishop of Detroit are willing to say that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake : they will not discuss it

Michael Voris was asked by the Archdiocese of Detroit to change the name Real Catholic TV.No reason was given.It was assumed that the ADL threatened the diocese with anti-Semitic laws.So to protect the Archdiocese,Archbishop Allen Vigneron  asked Michael not to use the name Catholic.
Now neither Michael Voris or the Archbishop of Detroit are willing to say that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake. They are not willing to discuss it.Since it would mean that Vatican Council II is in agreement with the Feeneyite 'rigorist interpretation' of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They would be affirming extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and not Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani.This would not be appreciated by the Jewish Left.
On Jan.27,2015 I sent the Archdiocese of Detroit an e-mail 1 and I also send a copy of it to Church Militant TV. None of the two have responded.Michael Voris was not willing to follow up this story with the Archdiocese.He did so recently with the girl who knelt and was refused Holy Communion at Mass in a Detroit church.
This issue was too hot for Michael Voris who is criticizing the bishops, who are silent like him, because they do not want litigation from the Left.
 Michael Voris will now only safely approach this subject  by criticizing Fr.Robert Barron for saying that most people  go to Heaven. Church Militant TV  will also in general say outside the Church there is no salvation when they  mean theologically that the baptism of desire and being saved in ignorance are exceptions to the dogma. Here he makes the same error as the archbishop of Detroit  and Fr.Robert Barron.
I sent copies of my blogpost and a related report to Rodney Pellettier , a producer and researcher at Church Militant TV, who has two degrees in theology. No response!
Rodney's theological formation could be the one  approved by the Left and the USCCB i.e there are known exceptions to the dogma, the Cushing-Marchetti version. He would have been taught that Marchetti was correct.. The baptism of desire referred to known, defacto,objective cases in the present times. So the baptism of desire is an explicit exception! It is an exception  to the traditional interpretation of extra  ecclesiam nulla salus according to Mother Angelica.
So presently Michael Voris  says Vatican Council II is amibous.2 This is because he is  using the Marchetti inference. He assumes that LG 16,LG 8,UR 3,NA 2,AG 11 (seeds of the Word) refer to explicit cases,defacto and personally known in February  2015. So they are objective exceptions to the traditional interpretation of outside the Church no salvation which he affirms in general, but stays clear of theology.The fault is not with Vatican  Council II which is not amibous on this issue. The fault is there with his assuming that all salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II refers not to hypothetical cases for us but actual cases in the present times. So they become exceptions to the dogma for him.This was Marchetti's original error and it has been generally accepted by the Church including the Archdiocese of Detroit and Birmingham, Alabama where EWTN and the NCR are located.
Whatever be ones views or prejudices on the Fr.Leonard Feeney issue, LG 16, UR 3 ,NA 2 are not explicit, they do not refer to cases who we know or can know who are saved without the baptism of water.Physically, in real life there cannot be any such case for us.

Michael Voris once asked Fr.Jonathan Morris,  an ex Legionary of Christ priest now incardinated in the Archdiocese of New York : who would Fr.Jonathan say , does not need to enter the Church to be saved ? For Fr.Jonathan there was known salvation outside the Church. There were exceptions to the dogma. This was the 1949 error of Cardinal Marchetti.
This now could be Church Militant TV's attitude to Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents.Where does Vatican Council II say there are exceptions to the dogma ? Where is the Baptism of desire case in Detroit this month which is an exception to the dogma?
Presently in the interpretation of Vatican Council II Church Militant TV makes the same error as the SSPX and the sedevacantists.The distinction between Feeneyism and Cushingism is not there. 3The traditional interpretation  is rejected with the Marchetti-Richard Cushing  inference.
When  Real Catholic TV had to change its name bloggers were referring to Canon Law. 4.The real issue was extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is not  accepted by the Left . Also there is no tolerance for the concept of the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political institutions.
Discussions of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Marchetti inference and Vatican Council II are not permitted.-Lionel Andrades
January 27, 2015

Archdiocese of Detroit : the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake.Changes teaching on Vatican Council II


Vatican Council II is not ambigous on the issue of other religions and Christian communities
SSPX-SO and MHFM do not realize that the Magisteria (two magisteriums) is created by two interpretations of Vatican Council II (Cushingism and Feeneyism).
The Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) refer to the 'Vatican Council II sect' which Vatican Council II are they referring to, according to Cushingism or Feeneyism ?


Archdiocese of Detroit and Canon Law

The Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) refer to the 'Vatican Council II sect' which Vatican Council II are they referring to, according to Cushingism or Feeneyism ?

Cardinal Baldisseri proclaims “evolution” of Dogma, in contradiction of St. Pius X

Screen Shot 2015-01-26 at 10.47.31
Edward Pentin has another disturbing revelation regarding Cardinal Baldisseri’s statements to the conclave at the Vatican last month of many large pro-family organizations. In a quote I have not seen elsewhere, Baldisseri discusses his views on Dogma, and how it can “evolve,” using the term in the same sense as the modernists condemned over a century ago by Saint Pius X. If one reads the entire Oath Against Modernism, it is quite easy to find that Pius X completely repudiated the concept that Dogmas could “evolve” into contradictory meanings, or even be watered down to the point that they have essentially no meaning or force, even as a “pastoral” recourse.
First, Cardinal Baldiserri’s quote. It should be mentioned that he is the man hand-picked by Pope Francis to lead both sessions of the Extraordinary Synod on the Family, both last year’s, and that coming this October:
The head of the Synod of Bishops secretariat, responsible for organizing the highly controversial October Synod on the Family, told Aleteia last week: “There’s no reason to be scandalized that there is a cardinal or a theologian saying something that’s different than the so-called ‘common doctrine.’ This doesn’t imply a going against. It means reflecting. Because dogma has its own evolution; that is a development, not a change.”
The contrast between his comments and St. Pius’ ‘Oath Against Modernism’ is striking, and worth highlighting given the confusion surrounding this synod and the engineering that seems to be taking place behind the scenes.
Now a few choice quotes from the Oath in rebuttal:
I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously….. [Is that not what is being proposed in the “openings” to adulterers, fornicators, and the perverse? Is it not an “evolution” of belief that winds up being completely opposed to the prior belief and practice of the Church?]
……I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion……[Which rejects the modernist error of antiquarianism, which posits that the earliest practice of the Faith was the purest and best. Of course, since the earliest practice of the Faith is somewhat unclear, that gives the modernists ample room to altar the Faith out of all recognition, changing it in just about any way to please them. Antiquarianism, by the way, was the principle argument in favor of the liturgical revolution and the Novus Ordo, even though the final “manufactured product,” as Pope Benedict described it, would have been in many respects completely alien to the early Church]
…….I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
That last sentence was both a warning by Pope Saint Pius X to our own time, and a rejection of the principle argument of the modernists – that Dogma not just can, but must change, to suit the changing moods and emphases of men in different times. Thus, to the modernist, the very idea of unchanging, immutable Dogma, always interpreted and practiced in the same manner, is not just wrong, but evil. To the modernist, there was no Resurrection, there was no God Incarnate, there was just a group of fanatical followers of one of many intinerant preachers to be found in what is now Palestine at that time, and they got together and willed this religion – a creation of man, not “God” (if he even exists) – into being. The religion known as Christianity/Catholicism was formed to be the “ideal” religious product for its time, and thus contained the beliefs it did to appeal to the people in those ancient days (I guess being burned alive, stoned to death, and tortured/martyred in innumerable ways was just wildly popular back then).
Times are different now, of course, and so the Church must have different beliefs. That this just happens to be exactly what the world (and the devil) has always wanted the Church to do is just a happy coincidence, I suppose. That is why men like Kung, Kasper, and their ilk, speak of the Resurrection as a myth or fantasy, cobbled together to wow the easily fooled masses of the Roman era. That speaks both to their own preening elitism (believing men of previous times, and the great mass of people today, to be gullible dupes), and complete lack of faith.
But for people of faith, people don’t just believe but KNOW that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, that He walked this earth, that He died for our sins, and was resurrected from the dead on the third day, modernists are the height of folly and even, I dare say, stupidity. That is why Pope Saint Pius X decried them in such strident terms. Unfortunately, modernism went underground and survived that great Saint’s efforts to crush it. It exploded to the surface at Vatican II, and is still very much alive today, if increasingly elderly and decrepit. But wherever we encounter modernism, we must always keep in mind this great saintly Pope’s condemnation of it. Tragically, that modernism remains so widespread it fills almost every corner of the Church, even those who would, if they could, remain innocent of it. But a time will come when it shall be beaten back and the glory of Christ’s Truth shine to the entire world again. I do not know when that time will be, but I know, as you know, that God, and his Church, shall triumph in the end.
So let the modernists rave. Let them spout their errors. We shall oppose them even as we pray for them in the charity Christ commands us to have. And in the end, once again, the Church shall be the Church and the Truth shall be set free.