Friday, February 20, 2015

Liberals and traditionalists agree Vatican Council II is a break with the past. None of them realize that the cause is the premise

...then Lionel, the VII documents should be clarified in and of themselves so that an outside lens isn't required. 
 Risultati immagini per Photo of what can I do?
Lionel:
If the SSPX does not clarify it what can be done?! I have been saying the same things for the last few years on my blog.
The clear teachings of the Church shouldn't be dependent upon whether or not one is wearing 3-D glasses.
Lionel:
Vatican Council II's teachings have become dependent on whether your using a premise in the interpretation or not. This is the reality.

The fullness of the faith cannot be left open to what amounts to the picking and choosing of premises.
Lionel:
Yes and this has been the defacto situation after the 1949 error.Now Catholics marry Protestants and Muslims and they are not told that they are in adultery and in mortal sin.They are on the way to Hell. Instead it is assumed that there is known salvation outside the Church and the traditional dogma is no more valid. They support this error with Vatican Council II interpreted with the premise.This has been implemented in the Church .
That is why the subsequent dismissal of the Oath Against Modernism by Paul VI smacks even more confusing. For it was the Oath that strictly prohibited the notion of reinterpreting Church teaching to mean anything other than what the Church had always taught.
Lionel:
True but when using the Nicene Creed in the Oath, we have a new doctrine.Since the premise is used. 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' is interpreted as ' I believe in three or more KNOWN BAPTISMS for the forgivness of sins and they are baptisms without the baptism of water'.This is the confusing Oath/Profession of Faith which is now made.
This is the doctrinal schism of the magisterium.They are not aware of it.
So ambiguous VII language combined with not having to vow to interpret doctrine in a manner in which the Church has always taught will automatically lead to the +Baldiserri evolution of teaching premise that has a Cardinal shouting down laity who are rightfully scandalized when the hierarchy attempts to redefine marriage by way of praxis while - wink, wink - leaving the 'written' doctrine in place.
Lionel:
Yes.Since 1949 they have changed extra ecclesiam nulla salus in theory and in practise.Then the same reasoning which they used to change extra ecclesiam nulla salus they applied it to Vatican Council II. So we have LG 16 etc referring to known cases in the present times. These defacto, objectively known cases, for the magisterium, contradict the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.No one from the SSPX comments on this.They do not agree or disagree they just do not comment.
These machinations fool no one, no one that is who actually takes the time to sit back and understand a situation prior to pidgeon holing others with terms they do not fully comprehend.
 Lionel:
The liberals and the traditionalists agree that Vatican Council II is a break with the past. None of them realize that the cause is the premise.
-Lionel Andrades
 
 
 
February 20, 2015

The dogma says all need the baptism of water for salvation. Jesus says the same in John 3:5. While you do not know of any exceptions.

 
 Please reconcile your thinking on the statements of yours below which are contradictory. We can move forward for you are ABSOLUTELY correct in what almost all in the Catholic Church have done to our faith with their evil distortion of Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance as the Church DEMANDS they be understood. If you and I were walking and talking together to Catholics and non Catholics they would ALL be taught without exception that they must enter, return or stay in the Catholic Church and be baptized with water in order to be saved . This command by Jesus and the Church is irrevocable and unchangeable. Having said that your sentences below MUST be explained for they are in opposition to each other...... and yet you hold both positions.
You said:
I accept being saved with invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. For me they are possibilities known only to God and will ALWAYS be followed with the baptism of water ( This position is False )


Lionel:
Why ? The dogma says all need the baptism of water for salvation. Jesus says the same  in John 3:5. While you do not know of any exceptions.
and then you turn around and contradict this sentence above when you say:

If God chooses to save a person without the Sacraments it would be known only to God and so would not be an explicit exception to the dogma.( of course they are not an exception to the dogma but you cannot decree that God himself must baptize with water)

Lionel:
The experiences of the saints confirm the dogmatic teaching.St. Francis Xavier mentions persons who returned back to the earth after being  physically dead, only to be baptised with water.So this is the way God has chosen for all to be saved- the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

and you also agree with Father Faber when he said:"We do not limit the far reaching excesses of His mercy"( but you are telling Father Faber that you, Lionel does limit God's mercies to water only)

Lionel:
Fr.Faber did not use the Marchetti error. He did not say that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.Fr.Frederick Faber held the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

You can not have it both ways. This always been your one and only misunderstanding which has distorted your position.
Lionel:
For me all need  Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation and there  are no exceptions. This is the teaching of Vatican Council II (AG 7) when not interpreted with the irrational inference. This is traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

What should be said by you is that God has bound Salvation to the Sacraments of the Catholic Church (Agreed!) and this is an absolute certainty and is the teaching mission of the Church without exception..... (Yes!) but as you mention correctly above you must confirm that God may grant salvation without the sacraments (God could since God is God. However the Holy Spirit teaches us that there is no salvation outside the Church.The Sacraments in the Church are necessary for salvation.  It was because Cardinal Marchetti thought there was salvation outside the Church, this has become a confusing issue for many Catholics)  and without any conditions placed on God.(The dogma and Vatican Council II say there are conditions)  You can not place limits on God's far reaching unknown mercies which are beyond our comprehension. You cannot tell God that he MUST baptize with water in Heaven.( The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 says the Church does not know of any means to eternal beatutude other than the baptism of water)
 God is not bound to the Sacraments..( The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 says the Church does not know of any means to eternal beatutude other than the baptism of water so God has  bound salvation to Sacramental baptism.)  His mercies are unknown to us AND you can not dictate to God how and in what manner that He uses his mercies to grant salvation. God absolutely did bind us and the Catholic Church as Father Feeney taught that all must enter, return or stay within the Church. (Agreed)  We must do this and once a person dies they are completely and totally in the hands of God where you can not and must not speculate or dictate how God applies his mercies. (The Church tells us in general how God applies his mercy. If there is some one who is saved without the baptism of water you and I would not know about it. )  
-Lionel Andrades


February 20, 2015

I agree with the Church, magisterial documents interpreted without the Marchetti Inference, the irrational premise.I affirm the dogma which is not contradicted by LG 16,LG 8,NA 2, UR 3

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/i-agree-with-church-magisterial.html
 

This was a Catholic Church gone into schism

February 19, 2015

Pope Benedict XVI and the SSPX

 
 
_____________________________________
 
 
 
Added:
DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION
From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.

Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatical act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.
Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Pellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
Moreover, I declare that Monsignor Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop emeritus of Campos, since he took part directly in the liturgical celebration as co-consecrator and adhered publicly to the schismatical act, has incurred excommunication as envisaged by canon 1364, paragraph 1.
The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur the very grave penalty of excommunication.
From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.
Bernardinus Card. Gantin Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops
 http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.it/

____________________________________


February 20, 2015

The issue is still doctrinal.Use an irrational premise and any Church document will emerge non traditional and irrational



February 19, 2015


Pope Benedict XVI and the SSPX

 



 

 
Patty said...
Actually, the SSPX could have come in under Benedict as you indicate, but would have had to formally accept in total all of VII statements - to include the ambiguous portions even now being pointed out as requiring clarification by +Schneider. The very same compromise formulas being used by +Kasper.

But, knowing that they cannot stay quiet about the necessary clarifications needed in VII documents, they could not in good conscience sign a document stating that they entirely agree with that which has been the doorway to so much of what is ailing the Church.

Would you prefer the Society to lie about these problems within VII and just break their word later in speaking out against them? Or would you rather they not speak out against them and let issues fester to the detriment of others because they are okay in their own prelature?

These are the very compromise formulas that are endemic within Vatican II. The very same +Kasper admits to being there and the very same he and others are using to do precisely what is complained of- and rightfully so - on Julie's blog.

This is the crisis in the Church. And why there is so much confusion about 'what's going on?' so much so that faithful Catholics are nearly blacking out from all of the head spinning barrel rolls.

http://www.churchmilitant.tv/archive/index.php?select=vort-2013-07&vidID=vort-2013-07-12-a


The above video is yet another reason why folks like Louis Verrechio are rightfully chagrined at Michael's seeming new penchant for name calling. And yet if +Burke rejects any anticipated shenanigans that very well could happen at the next Synod, would he then brand +Burke as encouraging people to leave the Church... or of being reactionary?

Cardinal Walter Kasper made a stunning statement in the pages of L'Osservatore Romano. In offering some reflections on the challenges facing the Church and the continued (perpetual) problem of the "true implementation of Vatican II", Kasper, speaking with reference to the documents of the Council, stated:

"In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction." (Cardinal Walter Kasper, L'Osservatore Romano, April 12, 2013)

In the Cardinal's statements, we basically have an affirmation of a fundamental thesis of Michael Davies and most Traditionalists: that the Council documents themselves have ambiguities in them and are subject to a multitude of interpretations. This concept of Conciliar ambiguity has been denied by many conservative/pop apologists, who insist that the Council documents are plain as day and it is only the malice of dissenters pushing a false implementation that is responsible for our current confusion.

Traditionalists, however, and ironically, Kasper, too, have insisted, however, that the destruction that followed the Council can be read back into the documents themselves. Even if the Council Fathers did not intend for the disaster that followed the Council (and most agree they did not), the documents themselves were constructed in such a way as to permit progressive interpretations when put into the hands of progressive theologians or bishops. Contra the conservative mantra of "perfect documents - imperfect implementation", Kasper affirms the Traditionalist critique of "imperfect documents lead to imperfect implementation." Benedict XVI had made the same point. There is an intimate connection between the documents and their implementation.

Please, Julie, try to understand the whole of an issue before making unfair and inaccurate proclamations.
February 20, 2015 

 __________________________________
Actually, the SSPX could have come in under Benedict as you indicate, but would have had to formally accept in total all of VII statements - to include the ambiguous portions even now being pointed out as requiring clarification by +Schneider. The very same compromise formulas being used by +Kasper.

Lionel:
Cardinal Kaspar and Bishop Schneider use the Marchetti Inference and so Vatican Council II is ambigous. Omit the irrational premise and the Council changes.
___________________

But, knowing that they cannot stay quiet about the necessary clarifications needed in VII documents, they could not in good conscience sign a document stating that they entirely agree with that which has been the doorway to so much of what is ailing the Church.
Lionel:
They are interpreting Vatican Council II with Marchetti's irrationality. So their bishops, theologians and priests are still part of the problem. They do not have the solution yet even though it is there before their eyes
.
______________________

Would you prefer the Society to lie about these problems within VII and just break their word later in speaking out against them? Or would you rather they not speak out against them and let issues fester to the detriment of others because they are okay in their own prelature?
Lionel:
When the premise is not used Vatican Council II changes. The inference used from 1949 changes the meaning of the text.
_________________________

These are the very compromise formulas that are endemic within Vatican II...
 

Lionel:
If Cardinal Kaspar knows that the Council is traditional without the Marchetti mistake wold he announce it in public ? Would Cardinal Muller do the same? Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Di Noia informed La Stampa that in an agreement with the SSPX there would be nothing to violate good relations with the Jews ( of the Left).Now how can he say that the Council is pro-Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
____________________

This is the crisis in the Church. And why there is so much confusion about 'what's going on?'...
The above video is yet another reason why folks like Louis Verrechio are rightfully chagrined at Michael's seeming new penchant for name calling...

Lionel:
Verrecchio and Voris use the same irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council.
Voris also says outside the Church there is no salvation but never refers to 'the dogma'.He stays clear of theology.Why? Also for good relations with...?
_________________________

Cardinal Walter Kasper made a stunning statement in the pages of L'Osservatore Romano...

Lionel:
The compromise was made in 1949 and he will not talk about it.Sadly, even the SSPX is ignorant.
______________________

In the Cardinal's statements, we basically have an affirmation of a fundamental thesis of Michael Davies and most Traditionalists...

Lionel:
Michael Davis, like Archbishop Lefebvre overlooked the Marchetti Inference.It was an oversight. The liberals in Boston took advantage of this
.
______________________

Traditionalists, however, and ironically, Kasper, too, have insisted, however, that the destruction that followed the Council...
Lionel:
It must be read in the false premise used in the interpretation.
___________________

when put into the hands of progressive theologians or bishops.
Lionel:
Also traditionalist bishops and priests.
_____________________

Contra the conservative mantra of "perfect documents - imperfect implementation"...
Lionel:
The documents without the premise are traditional. We now have in general an irrational interpretation of Vatican Coouncil II which has been implemented.
______________________

Please, Julie, try to understand the whole of an issue before making unfair and inaccurate proclamations
.Lionel:
The issue is still doctrinal.Use an irrational premise and any Church document will emerge non traditional and irrational.
-Lionel Andrades

 
February 20, 2015
This is not Catholic doctrine.It is a false doctrine that the SSPX has to accept 

This is not Catholic doctrine.It is a false doctrine that the SSPX has to accept

However the SSPX priests do not even want to discuss this.They say that they reject Feeneyism and support Marchetti.

Pope Benedict XVI and the SSPX



 



TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
CONCERNING THE REMISSION OF THE EXCOMMUNICATION
OF THE FOUR BISHOPS CONSECRATED BY ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE
 
 
This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

 

Pope Benedict was interpreting Vatican Council II with the Marchetti Inference and this made the Council a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.

So this is not Catholic doctrine.This is a false doctrine that the SSPX has to accept.

The hermenutic of continuity and rupture depend on the use or omission of the irrational premise from Marchetti's Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

Vatican Council II can be interpreted by the SSPX without the Marchetti Inference. Then the Council would not contradict the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.

But how can the SSPX leaders do this?

They will have to change completely their way of looking at Vatican Council II.They would have to admit that they too were interpreting the Council with the Marchetti premise. So the Council was a break with traditional doctrine on salvation, ecclesiology etc.

How can the SSPX now say that Feeneyism was correct and that the Council is Feeneyite.? Vatican Council II  does not contradict the traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism since it does not contradict the dogma.LG 16,LG 8,UR 3 etc refer to hypothetical cases. Theoretical cases cannot be defacto exceptions to the dogma and the Syllabus in 2015.

So doctrinally they could accept Vatican Council II as traditional when the premise is not used.However their priests do not even want to discuss this.They just say that they reject Feeneyism and support Marchetti.
They have a right to canonical status since without Marchetti's mistake Vatican Council II is pro-SSPX.This was not known or accepted by Pope Benedict XVI.
-Lionel Andrades

The two hermeneutics depend on the use or omission of the irrational premise from Marchetti's letter http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/the-two-hermenutics-depend-on-use-or.html
 

La Chiesa ha tradito GPII

La Chiesa ha tradito GPII


Hoser(di Marco Tosatti su La Stampa) Lo ha detto l’arcivescovo ad personam di Varsavia-Praga, Henryk Hoser, in riferimento al magistero del Papa polacco sulla Famiglia. Hoser ha fatto riferimento al prossimo Sinodo di ottobre sulla Famiglia.
“Lo dirò brutalmente: La Chiesa ha tradito Giovanni Paolo II. Non la Chiesa come Sposa di Cristo, non la Chiesa del nostro credo, perché Giovanni Paolo II era l’espressione, la voce autentica della Chiesa, ma è la pratica pastorale quella che ha tradito Giovanni Paolo II”.
L’arcivescovo ad personam di Varsavia-Praga, mons. Henryk Hoser, in un’intervista all’agenzia polacca KAI, ha parlato soprattutto della famiglia, e del prossimo Sinodo, in cui si confronteranno delegati provenienti da Paesi dove i problemi sono presenti. Si parlerà, ha detto il presule, di disgregazione della famiglia, della famiglia patchwork, dei matrimoni indivisibili, e ci sarà chi chiederà che sia data la Comunione ai divorziati risposati.
Hoser ha parlato di “presupposto erroneo”, perché “è un postulato della misericordia di Dio senza la giustizia, mentre è necessario premettere che nella vita matrimoniale e familiare deve essere garantita la giustizia”. Hoser ha ricordato le parole di Giovanni Battista a Erode, “Non hai il diritto di prendere la moglie di tuo fratello”. Ha aggiunto che “si tratta di un’esigenza di giustizia”, Citando Giovanni Paolo II ha detto che l’amore è “per essere onesti, e dobbiamo essere giusti davanti a Dio”, e ha aggiunto che bisogna rileggere la Familiaris Consortio, l’enciclica di Giovanni Paolo II sulla famiglia.
 
http://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/notizie-dalla-rete/la-chiesa-ha-tradito-gpii/

Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with the irrational premise which comes from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949

There is a leftist propaganda blog titled Robert Sungenis and the Jews which does not say that Vatican Council II indicates all Jews and other non Catholics need 'faith and baptism'(AG  7,LG 14) for salvation ( to avoid Hell).This is also the Church teaching on the Jews after Vatican Council II.
 Risultati immagini per Photo of 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.-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.
-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.
 
 
The Catholic Church on the Jewish People

Catechism of Trent, Article IV


Our sins consigned Christ the Lord to the death of the cross, most certainly those who wallow in sin and iniquity crucify to themselves again the Son of God, as far as in them lies, and make a mockery of Him. This guilt seems more enormous in us than in the Jews, since according to the testimony of the same Apostle: If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory; while we, on the contrary, professing to know Him, yet denying Him by our actions, seem in some sort to lay violent hands on him.
(Lionel: This passage does not say that Jews do not need faith and baptism for salvation or that we know of any exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 ( quoted above).
  

Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.
(Lionel: It does not say that they do not need 'faith and baptism' for salvation or that we know of any exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14.)
Nostra Aetate 4:

As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham's stock.
Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God's saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham's sons according to faith -are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles. Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.
( Lionel: Yes,Jesus was the Messiah for whom the Jews were waiting.)
The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people.
(Lionel: Yes and those who accept Jesus as the Messiah and are baptised in the Catholic Church will be saved)
As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation, nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading. Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle. In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and "serve him shoulder to shoulder" (Soph. 3:9).
(Lionel: During the present times they need to convert into the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) for salvation. This  is the teaching of Vatican Council II .)
Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.
(Lionel: Traditional Biblical interpretations and post Vatican Council II theology, without the Cardinal Marchetti Selvaggiani premise, inidicate Jews need to convert in the present times for salvation).
True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.
(Lionel: 'Although the Church is the new people of God'! (Nostra Aetate).Vatican Council II says Catholics are the new people of God. The Jews without the Messiah are no more the Chosen People.They were the Chosen People form whom the Jewish Messiah originated.The Gospel and the Traditional teachings tell us that if the Jews accept Jesus with faith and baptism in the Catholic Church they are not on the way to Hell. This is confirmed also in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) which is not mentioned in this article which is politically pro-Jewish Left.)
Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.
( Lionel:  Jesus ,in the Gospels says Jews need to convert for salvation )
Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church's preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God's all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.
(Lionel: Those who reject Jesus' Supreme Sacrifice on the Cross by not formally being a member of the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism'(LG 14,AG 7) have rejected the grace which was available for them.)


247. We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the sacred Scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf. Rom 11:16-18). As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes 1:9). With them, we believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word.
248. Dialogue and friendship with the children of Israel are part of the life of Jesus’ disciples. The friendship which has grown between us makes us bitterly and sincerely regret the terrible persecutions which they have endured, and continue to endure, especially those that have involved Christians.
249. God continues to work among the people of the Old Covenant and to bring forth treasures of wisdom which flow from their encounter with his word. For this reason, the Church also is enriched when she receives the values of Judaism. While it is true that certain Christian beliefs are unacceptable to Judaism, and that the Church cannot refrain from proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah, there exists as well a rich complementarity which allows us to read the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures together and to help one another to mine the riches of God’s word. We can also share many ethical convictions and a common concern for justice and the development of peoples. 

(Lionel: Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with the irrational premise which comes from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. So Vatican Council II would be a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus for him.Also Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 would be contradicted by Nostra Aetate 2, Lumen Gentium 16 etc, with Marchetti's 'known
exceptions'.
Controversial Evangelii Gaudium  permits the Eucharist to be given to
persons in mortal sin. This is contrary to the faith- teachings of the Catholic Church.
 Evangelii Gaudium  also presents a kerygma without teaching the necessity of formal  entry into the Catholic Church for salvation. So it is a break with pre-1949 Magisterium.It presents Jesus without the necessity of the Church.This contradicts Lumen Gentium 14 and Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation and that the Church is necessary for salvation.
It has changed the Nicene Creed, 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin' to 'I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgivessness of sins' This has come about with the Marchetti irrationality. It has rejected the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The pope interprets Vatican Council II with an objective, factual error  originating with the Holy Office, the Archdiocese of Boston  and the Jesuits in 1949.) 
- Lionel Andrades 
http://www.sungenisandthejews.com/ChurchTeachingontheJews.html

I agree with the Church, magisterial documents interpreted without the Marchetti Inference, the irrational premise.I affirm the dogma which is not contradicted by LG 16,LG 8,NA 2, UR 3

You even contradict yourself and this is what happens when you use private interpretation and do not listen to he Church.

Lionel:
I agree with the Church, magisterial documents interpreted without the Marchetti Inference, the irrational premise.I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which is not contradicted by LG 16,LG 8,NA 2, UR 3 etc. I affirm Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) which says all need faith and baptism for salvation which is not contradicted by (AG 7,LG 14) which also says a person can be saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.
AG 7 and LG 14 refer to all needing faith and baptism and also mentions those who are saved in invincible ignorance and implicit desire.
I accept being saved with invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. For me they are possibilities known only to God and will always be followed with the baptism of water.
 
I reject an interpretation of Vatican Council II by 'the Church' when it is inferred that LG 16 etc refer to known cases in the present times.Then it is wrongly concluded that  and there are explicit exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. This is irrational.This is a break with the magisterium before 1949 and so not part of the Deposit of the Faith.
 
So without the Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani Inference I accept Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Church in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.
 
I accept CCC 1257 when it says the Church knows of no means to eternal salvation other than the baptism of water. I reject CCC 1257 when it also says God is not limited to the Sacraments. Since the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (AG 7) tell us that God has chosen to limit salvation to the Sacraments in the Catholic Church.

On October 13, 2012 you posted on your own blog:
  Lionel said:
"Those who cannot say that we do not know any case of the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance have difficulty here.
Those who know that we do not know any exceptions, and that they are irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma, know that this is not an issue.
The baptism of water is the ordinary means of salvation we all agree here.
If God chooses to save a person WITHOUT the Sacraments it would be known only to God. So it does not contradict the ordinary, normal way chosen by God for us to go to Heaven
and avoid Hell."
Lionel:
If God chooses to save a person without the Sacraments it would be known only to God and so would not be an explicit exception to the dogma. This was where Marchetti went wrong.So if even if this is mentioned as an arguement, as it is often done, it is meaningless. It is irrelevant to the dogma.This was my point.Vatican Council II suggests this based on the Marchetti inference of there being known salvation outside the Catholic Church.
I personally believe that all who are in Heaven are there with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. This is the teaching of the Church without the Marchetti inference.

**************

I along with the Church agree 100 % with your last sentence. You admit that God is not bound by his sacraments. Enough with this "exception" and "Known" nonsense. (I agree . There are no exceptions since there are no known exceptions) The Church has always taught and demands that all must be taught and all must receive baptism by water in order that they may gain salvation. Furthermore the Church teaches that She knows of NO other means other than Baptism of water. This is what we believe and must teach to all. There are no exceptions and of course no one is known who is living that is saved by Baptism of Blood or Baptism of Desire. I have now repeated this way too many times . ( I agree with you here. This is what I have been repeating so many times ) You are stuck in your own mindset and not following Church teaching.

Furthermore just yesterday you said simply that you agree with the words of Father Faber and here we go again today in your denial???
(Fr.Faber has not said that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma.His writings precede the 1949 Marchetti mistake).
Father Faber said: "We do not bind God further than he has been pleased to bind himself.(Yes! God has bound salvation to the Sacraments in the Catholic Church.This was the point he made when he mentioned exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church) We do not limit the far reaching excesses of His mercy" You Lionel said "agreed" and now one day later you deny this truth.
(I agree with Fr.Faber)
-Lionel Andrades
I accept Vatican Council II and the strict interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. For me this is what 'the Church ' teaches http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/i-accept-vatican-council-ii-and-strict.html