Tuesday, February 17, 2015

The two hermeneutics depend on the use or omission of the irrational premise from Marchetti's letter

I sent the blog post to John Vennari 1 in which it is mentioned that there can be no return to the Syllabus of Errors  ONLY for those who use the irrational inference of Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani  to interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II.
Without the Marchetti inference Vatican Council II does not contradict the Syllabus.
I mentioned Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger accepted Marchetti's theories ( and the SSPX and  John Vennari did not know about it). 
Here they are :-
1.There is known salvation outside the Church in 1949.
2.Those saved with the baptism of desire ( implicit desire) or invincible ignorance and die without the baptism of water, are objectively known in 1949.
3.These objective cases are explicit exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by Fr.Leonard Feeney in 1949.
4.The dogma has changed or evolved.
All this was accepted by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the SSPX bishops and John Vennari.So Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc), for example, is a break with the Syllabus of Errors. We have the hermeneutic of discontinuity.
These same four  points, without the Marchetti irrational inference, gives us the hermeneutic of continuity. It is simple. It is too simple. May be because it is so simple it is not believed.
 
Here are the four points again without the Marchetti premise:
1.There is NO known salvation outside the Church in 1949.
2.Those saved with the baptism of desire ( implicit desire) or invincible ignorance and die without the baptism of water, are NOT objectively known in 1949.
3.These NON objective cases are NOT explicit exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by Fr.Leonard Feeney in 1949.
4.The dogma has NOT changed or evolved.
In another video 2 John Vennari says:-
The very fact that it is commonly held that Vatican Council II documents can admit two interpretations  (5:38) a hermeneutic of discontinuity and the hermeneutic of continuity, that they can be interpreted in a liberal way and a so called conservative way, testifies to a lack of scholastic  precision  in the documents.
Note: He does not realize that the hermeneutic of continuity and rupture come from the Marchetti Letter in 1949.The first part of the Letter has a hermeneutic of continuity with the dogma and the second part a hermeneutic of rupture.
 
John Vennari says that no one even pretends that the magnificent  documents of Vatican I or the Council of Trent, can be interpreted in any other way then exactly as they are written.
Note: Since they were written before Marchetti made an objective error in 1949 the dual position is not there in them.In Vatican Council II we have the hermeneutic with the irrational premise and without it, the one with an objective error and the one without it . It is the premise which decides the hermeneutic and not the text of Vatican Council II.
 
Here they are again.
HERMENEUTIC OF DISCONTINUITY ( With the factual mistake by Cardinal Marchetti)
1.There is known salvation outside the Church in 1949.


2.Those saved with the baptism of desire ( implicit desire) or invincible ignorance and die without the baptism of water, are objectively known in 1949.
3.These objective cases are explicit exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by Fr.Leonard Feeney in 1949.
4.The dogma has changed or evolved.
 
HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY ( Without  the factual mistake by Cardinal Marchetti)


1.There is NO known salvation outside the Church in 1949.
2.Those saved with the baptism of desire ( implicit desire) or invincible ignorance and die without the baptism of water, are NOT objectively known in 1949.
3.These NON objective cases are NOT explicit exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by Fr.Leonard Feeney in 1949.
4.The dogma has NOT changed or evolved.
 
Example:
Lumen Gentium 14 says all need faith and baptism for salvation but also mentions those saved in invincible ignorance.
Ad  Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation but also mentions those saved with implicit desire.
 
APPLY THE TWO HERMENEUTICS
 
DISCONTINUITY


Lumen Gentium 14 says all need faith and baptism for salvation but also mentions those saved in invincible ignorance WHO ARE KNOWN TO US IN THE PRESENT TIMES AND SO ARE AN EXCEPTION TO EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS , THE SYLLABUS OF ERROR ETC.
Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation but also mentions those saved with implicit desire,WHO ARE KNOWN TO US IN THE PRESENT TIMES AND SO ARE AN EXCEPTION TO EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS , THE SYLLABUS OF ERROR ETC.
 
CONTINUITY


Lumen Gentium 14 says all need faith and baptism for salvation but also mentions those saved in invincible ignorance WHO ARE NOT KNOWN TO US IN THE PRESENT TIMES (2015) AND SO ARE NOT AN EXCEPTION TO EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS, THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS ETC.
Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation but also mentions those saved with implicit desire, WHO ARE NOT KNOWN TO US IN THE PRESENT TIMES (2015) AND SO ARE NOT AN EXCEPTION TO EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS, THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS ETC.
 
It is the same Vatican Council II but the interpretation depends on the use or omission of the irrational premise from Marchetti's letter.
Without the premise Vatican Council II would affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so would be traditional on other religions and Christian communities. This could be accepted by the SSPX.
pius_ix_traditional-catholic-pius-ix
Since the popes did not correct the objective error in Marchetti's letter, the ambiguity has been transferred to Vatican Council II. When the original error is identified, there is no ambiguity in Vatican Council II ,with respect to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.
-Lionel Andrades









 

 1.
Without the Marchetti inference Vatican Council II does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors
 
 
2.

The Nicene Creed is contradicted by the Marchetti Letter, CCC 1257 and an interpretation of Vatican Council II with an irrational premise

You said: Fr.Leonard Feeney was not in heresy since there is no known salvation outside the Church.Pope Pius XII did not confirm this.
  No true Catholic would ever say that there is salvation outside the catholic Church.
Lionel:
The magisterium is saying it!
There are NEVER exceptions to entering Heaven other than being Catholic. IF and when a person enters Heaven by Baptism of Blood, Baptism of Desire or Invincible Ignorance they are brought into the Catholic Church by God. There are only Catholics in Heaven.
Lionel:
Agreed!

What should be our battle cry which addresses every issue that you discuss is as follows and is true:
IT IS CONDEMNED BY CHURCH TEACHING FOR ANY CATHOLIC TO PRESUME THAT ANYONE ALIVE WHO IS NOT CATHOLIC WILL BE SAVED.(Church teachng is confusing on this subject. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 say every one needs the baptism of water for salvation and ALSO every one does not need it. ) WHEREAS IT IS CHURCH TEACHING THAT THOSE WHO DIE AS CATHOLICS IN A STATE OF GRACE AND FREE FROM MORTAL SIN WILL MOST DEFINETLY BE SAVED. (Yes ) WE ARE COMMANDED BY JESUS AND THE CHURCH TO TEACH ALL PEOPLE ON EARTH FOR ALL TIME THAT THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ( Yes according to the dogma and Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14). No according to the Marchetti Letter and CCC 1257) AND ONE BAPTISM OF WATER FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. (This is the Nicene Creed 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins'. It IS contradicted by the Marchetti Letter, CCC 1257 and an interpretation of Vatican Council II with the Marchetti premise) IN ORDER TO BE SAVED. EVERYONE MUST ENTER, RETURN OR STAY WITHIN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN ORDER TO ATTAIN SALVATION. (Yes, according to the dogma and Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14). No, according to the Marchetti Letter, CCC 1257 and Vatican Council II and the Nicene Creed interpreted with the Marchetti Inference)
-Lionel Andrades

The mistake from 1949 was placed in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) and also in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257

Lionel,
 Whether a Catholic understands Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance as understood by the Church is not critical but it is mandatory that all Catholics accept and obey the church teaching on this subject even if they cannot understand or grasp it..
Lionel:
The problem is that Cardinal Marchetti has made an objective error and the Church has accepted it.When the Marchetti inference is used, the Church contradicts the Church before 1949. Also with the Marchetti irrationality just about every one is interpreting Vatican Council II with irrational theology.
The mistake from 1949 was placed in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) and also in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257.
__________________________
Having said that any Catholic who teaches to anyone whether Catholic or non Catholic that they will be saved outside the Catholic Church or without baptism of water is condemned by the Catholic Church up to and including formal heresy.
Lionel
It is heresy but this is the teaching of the Vatican after 1949.
-Lionel Andrades


INDIFFERNTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM / Syllabus of Errors
 +++ Pope Pius IX
     Following is Condemned......NEVER to be undone
 15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion  which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider  true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio
 "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

 16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever,  find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal  salvation. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.

 17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church  of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10,
 1863, etc.

 18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the  same true Christian religion, in which form it is given  to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. --
 Encyclical "Noscitis," Dec. 8, 1849.
 

It is a fact of life that defacto we do not know of any exception to the dogmatic teaching

Mike:
Lionel's argument, once again, can be summed by this logical fallacy, which he repeats constantly:
"We do not know of any defacto case of someone saved with an implicit desire and without the baptism of water. So it is not an exception to the dogma."
Lionel.
Since, as John Martigioni the apologist says, 'Zero cases of something are not exceptions'.
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  say there are no visible exceptions to the Feeneyite version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They are saying that we do not know of any defacto case, of someone saved with an implicit desire and without the baptism of water. This is an objective observation. It is relevant when Catholics like Cardinal Marchetti assume the baptism of desire etc is an exception to the dogma.It is said in response to the common bad theology on this subject.

 And neither do we do know of any de facto case of someone  saved with an explicit desire and with the baptism of water, and thus, the dogma does NOT suggest that we can know of any one adult's salvation (with certainty). So what is the point when the point he is attempting to make is based on a logical fallacy?
Lionel:
 
'And neither do we do know of any de facto case of someone saved with an explicit desire and with the baptism of water,'.We do not have to since no one says that those saved with an 'explicit desire and with the baptism of water' are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Instead they do say, like you, that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is also the SSPX irrationality.
So when faced with this irrational reasoning of there being  persons in heaven who are explicit exceptions on earth, to the dogma, I have to keep pointing out that this irrationality is an irrationality! It results in theology based on a false premise.The saved in Heaven being exceptions on earth is false proposition.
If you say there are exceptions then you imply that the exceptions are known. You imply people now in Heaven are on earth to become exceptions. They would have to exist and be known on earth to be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in 2015.
This is the theology lay Catholics use to interpret Vatican Council II and no one points this out to them.
 
Why does Lionel have a higher standard of proof (his proof being known de facto salvation) for the baptisms of desire and blood when the very same standard cannot be met for those adults he knows were externally baptized?
Lionel:
No one says those adults who were externally baptized are exceptions to the dogma.

 It is because Lionel has a false interpretation of the dogma, which he  thinks he can impose as a litmus test on the Church's teaching on the baptisms of blood and desire.
Lionel:
The dogma says all need to formally enter the Church.This was the teaching for centuries.It does not say there are exceptions.

 For his premise to be true,
Lionel:
That the dead now in Heaven are not physically visible on earth is not my premise, it is a fact of life.
 
or at least to be relevant ue, or at least to be relevant to his argument, he would need to demonstrate that the dogma says we can know with de facto salvific certainty that those who are sacramentally baptized have received an interior regeneration ("saved men walking"),
Lionel:
The dogma says all need the baptism of water for salvation since Jesus teaches this. (John 3:5, Mk.16:16)
 
when we know for a fact that we cannot possibly know this without knowing with certainty their interior dispositions.
Lionel:
In individual cases it is Jesus who will judge. In general the Church guided by the Holy Spirit tells us that all need to be formal members of the Church, all need faith and baptism, for salvation.
 
We can no more know with certainty the interior disposition  of a faith-filled catechumen who dies before he can receive  baptism, then we can know with certainty the interior disposition of the adult catechumen who receives water baptism just before death.
Lionel:
Yes.So neither of the two is relevant to the dogma as an exception.Since for us they are non existent cases in 2015.
 
 Yet, for his thesis to be true,
 Lionel:
I am not proposing that I know the interior disposition of someone and they are explicit, external exceptions to the dogma.
Lionel points to the latter as an example of a de facto case of someone saved with an explicit desire and with the baptism of water - when he cannot possibly know this unless that same person has been canonized as a saint.
Lionel:
No we cannot know the interior disposition of any one. So we cannot say that any particular person in the present times, does not need the baptism of water and Catholic Faith for salvation.Inner disposition is irrelevant to the dogmatic teaching.
Since the dogma according to Lionel, applies only to those  who have been externally incorporated into the Church,
Lionel:
The dogma tells us that all need to be externally incorporated into the Church. Vatican Council II (AG 7) also says 'all' need ' faith and baptism'.
IF a soul were to be saved by an interior regeneration/incorporation effected by faith and perfect charity, this would be an "exception" to a dogma which, according to Lionel, allows for no exceptions.
Lionel:
He would not be known to us in 2015. So he would not be an exception to the dogma.A possibility cannot be a known exception in 2015. A hypothetical case cannot be an exception to all needing to formally enter the Church in 2015 to go to Heaven.
We must not mix up what is invisible for being visible, what is theoretical for being practically known.This was the mistake of Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani.

But Lione's "known de facto salvation" thesis
Lionel:
It is not Lionel's thesis .It is a fact of life that defacto we do not know of any exception to the dogmatic teaching.
simply does not follow from Lionel's own rigorist interpretation of the dogma that allows salvation only for those who are visibly incorporated into the Church, as proven above.
Lionel:
This was the interpretation for centuries before 1949.
 
Canonized martyrs who the Church recognizes in her Liturgy as having died without sacramental ablution, so Lionel's arguments, as we already know, are false.
Lionel:
The Church only says they are saints or martyrs and this is accepted. If 'the Church' presumes that someone is in Heaven without the baptism of water then ' the Church ' contradicts 'the Church' before 1949. At one time, before or after 1949 'the Church' was wrong. The Church after 1949 would contradict the dogma with alleged exceptions.
 
In fact, using Lionel's litmus test for "visible saved men walking",
Lionel:
When you assume there are known exceptions it is an inference. Since for you the baptism of desire and blood and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma you infer  that these persons are visible saved men walking on earth.
For me there are no exceptions to the dogma. So there are no dead men saved and walking on earth, whom I can see.
we have a higher certainty of salvation for the faith-filled non-water baptized catechumen who was "baptized" in fire (burned at the stake for the love of God), than we do for the apparently 'filled RCIA catechumen who dies of a heart attack right after water Baptism
Lionel:
We cannot say in particular cases that someone is in Heaven without the baptism of water.
 
Yet, the Church claims each as her own, even if in the  former case external corporate membership is never realized, though, by the visible manifestation of supernatural faith vivified by the highest form of charity, she assumes with greater certainly an internal incorporation with Christ, without claiming salvation for either with infallible certainty (unless either is eventually canonized). 
Lionel:
There is no such case in 2015 for it to be an exception to the dogma.


 What we do know with infallible certainty is that ANY ONE  adult who has an explicit or implicit desire for Baptism and possess the requisite faith and charity, will in fact be saved - de fide.
Lionel:
Yes in faith, in principle.Explicitly we do not know of any such case.Hypothetically yes. In theory, yes.
 
 
This is not an exception to the dogma, it is an intrinsic part of the dogma.
Lionel:
The dogma does not mention it .Neither do we know of any particular case in the present times.

 Lionel doesn't appear to realize that his thesis says that  the dogma of extra ecclesiam nulla salus stipulates that actual sacramental ablution is
Lionel:
Sacramental batism is necessary for salvation.
 
intrinsically necessary for "known de facto" salvation is inherently defective (a logical fallacy based on a false premise),
Lionel:
Sacramental baptism is necessary for salvation.Sacramental baptism is known in particular cases.We can see someone being baptised with water. It is defacto and not hypothetical. It can be be repeated.This is not a premise. It is something physically visible.
 
 
 but that does not stop him from saying that anyone who is said to have the possibility of salvation without water baptism (those who possesses the necessary dispositions), precisely as the universal ordinary magisterium teaches (e.g., Pope Pius XII and the Roman  Catechism of Trent), would be an exception to the dogma.
Lionel:
Those who have the possibility of salvation would also have the disposition for salvation and they  are acceptable only as possibilities. They are not known cases.
No magisterial document before 1949 says that these cases are objective for us. Neither do they state that they are exceptions to the dogma.I repeat the text of these documents do not state this.
One has to wrongly infer that these cases are explicit for us in the present times and so are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma. This was the error of  Cardinal Marchetti. 
 
since "We do not know of any defacto case of someone saved with an implicit desire and without the baptism of water."
Lionel:
No magisterial document before 1949 says that we do know of 'any defacto case of someone saved with an implicit desire and without the baptism of water', who is an explicit exception to the dogma.

An "exception" to the dogma would suggest that a soul who is  saved extra-sacramentally (but never without the grace of the  sacrament)
Lionel:
We do not know of any such case and neither did Cardinal Marchetti and Cardinal Cushing know of such a person in 1949.
 
is saved by another means outside the dogma of EENS, an extra-sacramental means unknown to the Church.
Lionel:
We don't know of any such case in the present times. So these cases cannot be exceptions Neither did Cardinal Marchetti know of someone saved outside the Church. This was his error. This confusion has been placed in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14).
When one is aware of it, it can be interpreted according to Tradition.
 
 But this applies only to unbaptized infants who are given a non-assured "hope" of salvation, and not those who the Church recognizes with infallible certitude WILL be saved provided the necessary dispositions are present (resulting in a state of grace and interior incorporation).
Lionel:
We do not know of any such case in 2105 who could be an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.

Anyone who dies in a state of grace is saved, period, de fide devina, and the Church does not restrict God to the ordinary instruments of salvation to effect this same end (de fide ecclesiastica).
 
 
 
Lionel:
We do not know who these cases are in particular for them to be exceptions in 2015 to the dogma.

 Lionel, as it appears to me, is stuck in a vicious incoherent circle from which he cannot escape, and it is all due to his faulty interpretation of the dogma of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Lionel:
 
I am affirming the traditional interpretation of the dogma and I am saying that I do not personally know of any exception in 2015 and neither does any one else before 1949 state that they know of an exception to the dogma. This is simple and traditional.
I am in agreement with the Church Councils, the popes, saints, Fr.Leonard Feeney and Vatican Council II (interpreted without the irrationality). I am in disagreement with Cardinal Marchetti , you and the SSPX when it is suggested that there are known exceptions to the dogma in 2015 or that there are magisterial texts before 1949 which state that the dead saved are visible on earth to be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.

-Lionel Andrades

Fr.Leonard Feeney was not in heresy since there is no known salvation outside the Church.Pope Pius XII did not confirm this

 And this is where we are at for your agreement, disagreement or further clarification. In charity, If you totally disagree with any of the following points there is not too much we can do going forward but be the best Catholics that we can be and pray intensely.

   1. It is Catholic Church teaching that someone can positively be saved by Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible ignorance when these conditions find themselves pleasing to God.
Lionel:
1.Could you clarify if you mean baptism of desire and blood with or without the baptism of water? Even though, either way it is not an exception to the dogma.
2.Also do you mean a baptism of desire and blood which is physically visible or invisible for us in the present times?
3.Do you consider pre-1949 Church documents ( Council of Trent, Mystici Corporis etc) as referring to a baptism of desire etc which is visible or invisible for us, objectively seen or explicitly not known to us?
  2. It is a matter of fact that these conditions have happened in the past and most likely will occur in the present and future.
Lionel:
It can be accepted as a possibility but not as a matter of fact, in the sense that we finally do not know how a particular person was saved.
For example St.Emerentiana,Virgin and Martyr was saved and we believe she is in Heaven. However did she receive the baptism of water before her martyrdom or did she receieve it after physical death.It was the experience of St.Francis Xavier and the saints that persons dead,could not go to Heaven without the baptism of water. The saints administered the baptism of water to persons who returned from the dead only to be baptised with water.
For me it has to be baptism of desire or blood with the baptism of water, since this is the dogmatic teaching.All who are in Heaven have 'faith and baptism'.
______________________
Your are absolutely correct in saying that they are not known to us while a person is alive on earth. Saints have been confirmed by the Church and it is not for you to question. They are known to us after their death proving Church teaching, not that the Church must prove anything. What the Church declares as worthy of being believed must be accepted by the faithful.
Lionel :
When the Church declares someone a saint I accept it. I also know that it is not an exception to the dogma.It is irrelevant to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma since these cases do not exist in reality on earth in 2015. So they cannot be exceptions to the dogma.
_______________________________

3. When Salvation occurs in these conditions they are not exceptions but most assuredly are welcomed into Heaven by God as Catholics.
Lionel:
Yes.
____________________________

  4. it is not for you or anyone to say how God welcomes these souls into Paradise for God is not bound by his sacraments.
Lionel:
God is bound to the Sacraments,the dogma  tells us. Cardinal Marchetti made an error when he assumed that there is salvation outside the Church. He was factually wrong when he assumed that the baptism of desire etc referred to a known case in 1949. This factual error was  accepted by the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II .Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger incorporated it in the  Catechism of the Catholic  Church 1257 ' God is not limited to the Sacraments.'
So CCC 1257 like the Marchetti letter says every one needs the baptism of water with no exceptions and also there are known exceptions. Irrational!
______________________________

5. Father Feeney denied Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and that Invincible Ignorance could possibly lead a person to Salvation.
Lionel:
He denied there was salvation outside the Church. I agree with him. The baptism of desire or blood in 2015 are not known to us, they are known only to God. So they are not explicit for us for them to be exceptions to the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
The dogma says all need the baptism of water for salvation.
______________________________
 He was Saintly in teaching the faith to all but wrong and disobedient on this issue. You have never admitted that this was the case.
Lionel:
He was repeating the traditional teaching. The Church Councils did not say that there was salvation outside the Church. They did not mention the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance as an exception to the dogma. This was the heresy of Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits.They were supported by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which was made public it is reported only  after Cardinal Marchetti had died.
___________________________________
areful in saying that Pope Pius XII did not understand or was guilty of error with regards to the letter of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office and its aftermath.
Lionel:
Fr.Leonard Feeney was not in heresy since there is no known salvation outside the Church.Pope Pius XII did not confirm this.
Neither did he say categorically that all Jews and other non Catholics in Boston need to convert with no exceptions, for salvation.He did not defend the traditional teaching.
______________________________________
The truth in the contents were most definitely not obeyed by many to undermine the faith and teach error That has been and continues to be a tragedy. That abuse is a totally different subject You can not attack the contents but certainly are accurate on their rampant abuse and denial of Church teaching on No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and Baptism by water.

          THE FOLLOWING LIONEL MUST BE OUR BATTLE CRY:
7. The Catholic Church declares , defines and teaches and
embraces that those who attain holiness that is pleasing to God through Baptism of  Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance shall be  saved. (Yes and we do not know and cannot know who they are and so they are irrelevant to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus)
let it be known to all for all time by our  solemn and highest decree that the Catholic Church has bound  herself as she is bound by Jesus that all people must be taught and are commanded to enter, remain or return to the Catholic Church and be baptized with water in order to attain Salvation. (Agreed)
There are no circumstances in which  this decree may be modified, changed or disobeyed at any point  in time.(This was the dogmatic teaching and is also the message of Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14).
-Lionel Andrades