Wednesday, March 18, 2015

If the Magisterium accepts that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without Marchetti's irrational premise and conclusion then the Church comes back to Tradition, as Bishop Williamson sought

Former SSPX Bp. Williamson, soon to be excommunicated … again 1

I saw at CWR that former SSPX Bp. Richard Williamson intends soon in Brazil to consecrate at least one priest as a bishop.
Lionel:
No credit is being given to Rorate Caeli for breaking the news.This is avoided by Fr.Z and others, including CWR.
Mobile
He will immediately incur, again, the excommunication which he had incurred at the time of his own illicit consecration in 1988 by the late Archbp. Marcel Lefevbre.
Lionel:
They were protesting against Vatican Council II in 1988.
They did not know then that the Good Thief on the Cross or St.Emerentiana cannot be exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. Since they existed centuries back. Exceptions must exist in the present times. Something or someone can only be an exception today.Every exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation has to happen today.Otherwise it will not be an exception today.At Vatican Council II ( 1960-1965) no one there knew of anyone saved without faith and baptism.
So there really aren't any exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the srict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Bishop Williamson still does not realize it now. He assumes that there are explicit exceptions to the dogma. So he cannot say that Vatican Council II II affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma and is traditional on other religions and an ecumenism of return.
The magisterium will be making the same error.Instead of correcting them self and clarifying the issue once again on Vatican Council II there will be excommunications.
That excommunication had been lifted by Benedict XVI as a sign of good will toward the SSPX. Williamson was subsequently expelled from the SSPX for his extreme positions.
Lionel:
Extreme positions?
If the Magisterium accepts that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without Marchetti's irrational premise and conclusion then the Church comes back to Tradition, as Bishop Williamson sought.
The Magisterium is not going to do this since it will be considered  an 'extreme position' by the political Left.
 
So… I am reminded of my old analogy of old fashioned women’s silk stockings. Once they get a snag in them the fabric starts to run and there’s almost no way to stop it.
BTW… it seems to me that one of the reasons that Pope Francis is turned off by things traditional may be his hearing about what Williamson was like as rector of the SSPX seminary in Argentina.
Lionel:
What was his moral or faith crime? What canon law did he violate?
 
In 2009 the head of the SSPX, Bp. Fellay, removed Williamson from that seminary after Williamson denied the Holocaust. After that he was removed from the SSPX.
Lionel:
So for political reasons (Leftist values) he could not be a bishop in the Catholic Church.Otherwise he did not violate any Church teaching.
Could the Magisterium  be in public heresy and so Bishop Williamson is consecrating new bishops without the permission of the Vatican ?
By the constant Magisterium the SSPX really means the Magisterium before 1949 which did not use the false premise
 
 Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict also used the false premise and conclusion from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949
 
What was Fr. Hardons error that Cardinal Burke approved?
 
 The Council of Trent, Mystici Corporis no where says that these cases are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : Rome made a mistake in 1949
 
Marchetti’s false premise has been accepted by the Magisterium
 
 
-Lionel Andrades
 
1.
 
 

Fr.John Zuhlsdorf does not believe in the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : advice on interfaith marriages http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/frjohn-zuhlsdorf-does-not-believe-in.html

Pope Francis, Cardinal Muller and Cardinal Ladaria are refusing to interpret Vatican Council II without the irrationality http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/pope-francis-cardinal-muller-and.html
Edward Pentin pulls down Cardinal Muller's controversial interview ? : still available on the Vatican website http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/vatican-edward-pentin-pull-down.html
 
January 13, 2015
Cardinal Muller's doctrinal error placed on the Vatican website!
Edward Pentin is asking us to accept a lie and proclaim a falsehood: the same error is being forced on the Franciscans of the Immaculate and the Manelli family
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/edward-pentin-is-asking-us-to-accept.html
 
Friday,July 4, 2014
Fr.Frederico Lombardi does not address doctrinal questions on Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/frfrederico-lombardi-does-not-address.html#links

Cardinal Gerhard Muller's doctrinal error was placed on the Vatican website and found on Edward Pentin's webpage.The editors at the National Catholic Register approved it 

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/cardinal-gerhard-mullers-doctrinal.html

Archbishop Thomas Gullickson, John Martigioni and Fr.Rev. Fr.P. Stefano Visintin OSB, Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Pontifical University St.Anselm agree with me : there are no visible exceptions.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/archbishop-thomas-gullickson-john.html

Fr.Marco Hausmann FSSP confirms: there are no physically visible cases of the baptism of desire

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/frmarco-hausmann-fssp-confirms-there.html
Cardinal Muller does not call the Department of the Theology of Religions at the Gregorian University as being heretical
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/cardinal-muller-does-not-call.html

 
Jesuit priests Wolanin,Tiso, Lobo, Morali, Mokrani, Fuss, Muozj, Bianchini and others are teaching Missiology at the Gregorian Univesity,Rome based on apparition theology http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/jesuit-priests-wolanintiso-lobo-morali.html
 
_________________________________________________________
 
 

So if we do not know of any such case how can it be an exception to the dogma for Mark Shea ? This was the objective mistake of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

Mark Shea assumes that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma as interpreted by the Church Councils, saints, Vatican Council II (AG 7) and Fr.Leonard Feeney.
My view ( and not some concept of Feeneyism ) is being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire is not related to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, it is not an exception to the traditional strict interpretation of the dogma. It is not even relevant.
The Good Thief on the Cross, who died allegedly without the baptism of water, cannot be an exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma. Since he existed centuries back. Exceptions must exist in the present times. Something or someone can only be an exception today.
Every exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation has to happen today.Otherwise it will not be an exception today.
Saint Louis Catholic
Something that happened in the past cannot be an exception to the dogma on March 18.Something that will happen in the future cannot be an exception to the dogma on outside the church there is no salvation. Something that happens in Heaven and is known only to God, cannot be an exception on earth to the dogma today;someone in Heaven cannot be an exception o earth, to all needing to convert formally into the Church on March 18, 2015.
 
So if someone dies in invincible ignorance ( with or without the baptism of water) it would be known only to God. So how could it be an exception or relevant to the strict interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation ?The message of the dogma is related to today.All need 'faith and baptism' for salvation today.All need to convert today into the Church to avoid the fires of Hell.Even if someone were to die without faith and baptism ( which is not de fide) we would not know of any exception today.Humanly we cannot know. These persons would be dead and in Heaven.For Mark Shea being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.
 
 
If a pope, cardinal or magisterial document infers that there are exceptions today it is false.It has to be rejected.This is common sense.The dead -past, present or future- cannot be exceptions to all needing to convert into the Church today.
Cardinals Marchetti and Cushing in 1949 did not know of any exceptions.
At Vatican Council II ( 1960-1965) no one there knew of anyone saved without faith and baptism.
When Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus were issued neither did Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger know of any exceptions to the dogma.There is no known case of salvation outside the Church i.e without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.
 
 
 
So how can the Catechism of Pope John Paul II, Dominus Iesus, Redemptoris Missio and other magisterial documents, over seen by Cardinal Ratzinger, imply that there is salvation outside the Church? Yet they do.The magisterium has made a factual error and Mark Shea repeats it. He assumes there are explicit exceptions to the dogma. So he cannot say that Vatican Council II II affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma with Ad Gentes 7 and there cannot possibly be exceptions in Vatican Council II to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus
For Mark Shea,as it was for cardinals Marchetti and Cushing in 1949, persons in Heaven are living exceptions on earth to all need to be formal members of the Church (with faith and baptism) to avoid Hell.It is a fact of life that we cannot see these people on earth.
Mark Shea also also contradicts Church documents before 1949 which do not mention the baptism of desire and being being saved in invincible ignorance, as referring to cases known to us in the present times i.e defacto or explicitly visible. Neither does Mystici Corporis or the Council of Trent allege that these cases are known and visible to us and so are exceptions to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So if we do not know of any such case how can it be an exception to the dogma for Mark Shea ? This was the objective mistake of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
 

Mark Shea then uses this same irrationality (false premise-the dead-saved are visible) with a false conclusion (they are exceptions to all needing to convert)
to allege that Lumen Gentium 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance ) is an explicit exception to Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation) and Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
He is also rejecting the Nicene Creed by inferring 'I do not believe in one (known) baptism, the baptism of water but three or more known baptisms ( blood, desire, seeds of the Word, invincible ignorance, good conscience etc). This is irrational and heretical. The baptism of desire and blood are known only to God. We do not know any one who will be saved with the 'seeds of the Word'(AG 11) etc.
He rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, changes the Nicene Creed and presents us with an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Mark Shea cannot say that any particular person in 2015 has been saved as such or will be saved as such in future without Catholic Faith.
Since these cases are unknown possibilities, even if there are many of them(100's) they are irrelevant to the dogma.The dogma tells us all need to be formal members of the Church in 2015 for salvation.'Zero cases of something are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus' says the apologist John Martignoni. The Church also teaches that all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation.The Council of Florence indicates Protestants and Orthodox Christians are on the way to the fires of Hell unless they convert into the Church. Ad Gentes 7 has the same message.Mark Shea does not want to discuss this.
I am not using the apologetics of the St.Benedict Centers, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
-Lionel Andrades