Tuesday, February 24, 2015

There were four Catholic professors at Boston College who could not say that they could see the visible-dead exceptions. They were expelled by the Jesuits.

That The Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill
 
Anthony:
Lionel, you maintain (if I understand correctly) that exceptions to the “extra ecclesiam” dogma are only theoretical.

Lionel:
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are possibities known only to God and can only be hypothetical for us. Since they are theoretical possibilities, they cannot be defacto exceptions to all needing Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation in 2015.
_________________________________

But para 1259 of the 1993 Catechism of the Church states: “For catechumens who die before their baptism, their explicit desire…. [to receive baptism]…. assures them the salvation they were not able to receive through the sacrament”.

Lionel:
This is based on the Cardinal Francesco Marchetti error in 1949. He assumed that there was salvation outside the Church, and that there were persons saved without the baptism of water.He did not know of any such case personally, and no magisterial document before 1949 makes this claim.Mystici Corporis and the Council of Trent only refer to these hypothetical cases. They do not say that they are personally known to us or can be personally known to us and so are explicit exceptions to the dogma.

This error was accepted by Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits in Boston and the confusing lines on being saved in invincible ignorance ( inculpable ignorance) and with implicit desire were inserted in Vatican Council II (AG 14,AG 7).
_______________________________

Now, we know for a fact that there have been many such people….

Lionel:
No we don't know for a fact if God may have saved a person with the baptism of desire or blood followed by the baptism of water, before or after, physical death. This is known only to God.We do not know for example,if St.Emerentiana for instance, received the baptism of water before death. The saints including St. Francis Xavier tell us that some people have returned from the dead only to be baptised with water. We do not know if this happened to her.This would be known for a fact only by God.

__________________________________

So we know for a fact that they are in Heaven, hence they are definite, concrete exceptions to “extra ecclesiam”.
Lionel:
If someone is deceased then that person cannot be seen on earth for him to be an explicit exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.The person who is saved in Heaven is not visible to us on earth.So he cannot be relevant to the dogma which says all need to be formal members of the Church for salvation. Non existent persons in our reality, cannot be defacto exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.

This was the original mistake of Cardinal Marchetti
.
__________________________________

But…. You think the Catechism is in error(!).

Lionel:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 says the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water and it ALSO SAYs God is not limited to the Sacraments. In other words for salvation all need the baptism of water but some do not need it . This is contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.

The error comes from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. In the first part of the Letter the dogma is affirmed as it was known for centuries i.e without exeptions. In the second part of the Letter, the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are assumed to be explicit for us in real life, and so are exceptions to the dogma, as mentioned in the first part of the Letter.

So the Magisterium has made an objective mistake. How can deceased people be defacto exceptions to the dogma ?
_____________________________

Also, I looked up your Fr Feeney……. He was excommunicated.
Lionel:
Yes he was excommunicated. He said there is no salvation outside the Church and they wanted him to say that they could see ghosts who were living examples of salvation outside the Church! He refused to do it.
There were also four Catholic professors at Boston College who also could not say that they could see the visible-dead exceptions. They were expelled by the Jesuits.
___________________________
The loonies really have taken over the asylum this time.
No more reading blogs for me now, until Easter, as a Lenten discipline. And for my sanity.
Lionel:
The loony theology says that the baptism of desire is an exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It also says that LG 16( being saved in invincible ignorance) is an excception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The loony theology implies that these persons, though in reality in Heaven, are visible exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The deceased are exceptions to all needing the bhaptism of water on earth!
This is standard theology in the Catholic Church after 1949.
It comes with the irrational inference of Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani.
I usually refer to it as fantasy theology.
Fr.Leonard Feeney had to put up with it during his time.It has now ossified among the Jesuits and the rest of the Church.
-Lionel Andrades

 

There being exceptions is the irrational reasoning used to interpret Vatican Council II by John Vennari, Chris Ferrara, John Salza and Louie Verrecchio.

John Vennari, Chris Ferrara,John Salza have no comment on Louie Verrechio's irregular marriage nor on how they use a  false premise from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.They use the same premise in the Letter and in Vatican Council. They accept the irrational conclusion in the Letter but reject it in Vatican Council II.
 
Louie Verrecchio speaks at SSPX and the Fatima Network Conferences with John Vennari, John Salza, Cornelia Ferrara and SSPX priests and they have nothing to say on this subject.
 
EWTN speakers are using the same irrational premise to dismiss the dogma as Vennari, Ferrara and Verrecchio.
 
FANTASY PREMISE
 
For instance they all will accept the Letter of the Holy Office which infers that salvation in Heaven is known and visible on earth and so there are cases of persons dead who are living exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. Where does it say it ? The text does not mention it? Not directly.Though  this is implied by the Letter and is accepted  in general.
Ask yourself- how could the baptism of desire for instance be an exception to the traditional teaching on salvation by Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center ? It was an exception since it was implied that in 1949 there were exceptions. There were exceptions  in 1949 who were saved without the baptism of water and they were known to the Holy Office and the Archbishop of Boston. If there were no such people alive how could there be exceptions? They would have to be known. This is implied.
STRANGE INFERENCE
 
So this was the inference.The problem is ( we now realize) is that there were no exceptions and there cannot be an exception. Period. 1) Since those saved with the baptism of desire are in Heaven. 2) We also cannot say that any particular person will be saved without the baptism of water.So exceptions are physically not visible.They are humanly not there.
 
There could not have been exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Impossible. Whatever be Fr.Feeney's  theology or opinion on whatever,it is a fact of life that we cannot see persons in Heaven.Nor can we predict that someone will be saved without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.
 
IRRATIONAL REASONING
 
There being exceptions is the irrational reasoning  used to interpret Vatican Council II by John Vennari, Chris Ferrara, John Salza   and Louie Verrecchio and other traditionalists.
 
Here it is. Lumen Gentium 16 refers to those who are saved in invincible ignorance. This is acceptable to the three of them. No problem here. These cases are saved without the baptism of water. It's fine for them. This was the original  inference in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. These cases are known in the present times. This is acceptable for them. This was also Marchetti's inference when he issued the Letter in 1949. These cases being known, are now explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is the false conclusion which comes from Cardinal Marchetti. Even this is recognised. However here, since they are exceptions to the dogma they reject LG 16. They reject Vatican Council II.Here there is a turn around.
 
 
ONE IS ACCEPTED. THE OTHER REJECTED.
 
The same irrational reasoning is used with the Marchetti letter and Vatican Council II. In both cases there is a false premise ( the dead are visible on earth) and a false conclusion ( and these living- deceased are explicit exceptions to Tradition and in particular the dogma on salvation).However the Letter is accepted but Vatican Council II is rejected.
Really, it is because the irrational premise and conclusion from the Letter is accepted that Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They overlook this point in their comments on the Council.
 
AVOID THE PREMISE THE RESULT IS DIFFERENT
 
Avoid the premise and the result is different. If they did not presume that the dead are visible on earth then LG 16 would not be an exception. There would be no exceptions to the dogma in the Council.
If there are no exceptions to the dogma in the Council ( and there aren't any)  then it means Vatican Council II has not changed the traditional interpretation,on other religions and Christian communities. All need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation. UR 3 refers to a possibility but not an exception to the dogma. NA 2, LG 16,LG 8 etc are only possibilities. They are possibilities and  are not explicit.Hypoththetical possibilities cannot be defacto exceptions.
So why will they all keep  using the false premise ?
If Louie Verrecchio stops using it he would have a different perspective on his marriage. He would also be able to see the Council with  a rational perspective.
His commentaries on Vatican Council II are based on those, who like him, use the false premise to reach a non traditional conclusion.
-Lionel Andrades
 

Speaker at SSPX/Fatima conferences in adultery? 

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/speaker-at-sspxfatima-conferences-in.html

Fr.Nicholas Gruner has only to interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and the Council becomes traditional
 
All the speakers at the Fatima Mini Conference at Chicago this week to use an irrational inference in the interpetation of Vatican Council II
 
The two popes like Fr.Nicholas Gruner interpreted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, on salvation, with an irrationality
So Vatican Council II does not contradict itself. The text does not contradict itself unless you infer that what is INVISIBLE for us is VISIBLE

Traditionalists reject Vatican Council II with heresy and accept the Letter of the Holy Office with heresy. They do not see how the two are connected

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/traditionalists-reject-vatican-council.html#links

Hurling Vulgarity at a Cardinal

Hurling Vulgarity at a Cardinal

http://youtu.be/a4T6TGZIhKs