Wednesday, May 27, 2015
He means that the whole Church, traditionalists included, have accepted the Marchetti Error, which gave birth to the new theology.It is part of magisterial documents and is mentioned in Vatican Council II.
Feeneyism which was magisterial according to the pre-1949 Church was replaced with Cushingism ( there are known exceptions to the dogma).This is the liberal theology which is irrational, non traditional and accepted by the contemporary Magisterium, including the two popes.
Pope Francis chaired the May 25-26, 2015 meeting of the Ordinary Council of the Synod of Bishops preliminary meeting.It is preparing for this October’s synod. It was held at the Gregorian Pontifical University in Rome, the Jesuit University, where Fr. Francois-Dumortier S.J is the Rector. He is also one of the theological consultants for the October Synod.
Fr.Francois-Dumortier will suggest ( based on their being alleged salvation outside the Church) that there can be an exception made in our understanding of the Eucharist being given to the divorced and remarriage. Cardinal Walter Kaspar already let out the secret, before the last Synod on the family had begun.
As I mentioned in a previous blog post 1 his understanding is : if we can change extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) why not everything else? If we could get away with it once (1949) with theology why not a second time? So theology will be used to change Church teaching in October 2015.
Even the traditionalists and the conservative Catholics accept that there is salvation outside the Church.So it will be easy this time too for the Jesuit theologians.
Michael Voris and John Henry Weston were there reporting at the last Synod and I think of the many blog posts which I have sent them and they still do not understand what I am saying.Or for some reason they do not want to comment on it.
Similarly the Society of St. Pius X are not going to expose the error since then they will have to admit that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made a mistake. So there will be silence also from Chris Ferrara, John Vennari and the SSPX priests in the USA.
The FSSP is now part of the Church, with full canonical status. So they are not going to say that the baptism of desire had nothing to do with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
They accept the new ecclesiology like Fr.John Zuhlsdorf. Fr.Z has a report on his blog and does not mention this issue. Since he accepts Marchetti's Error like Cardinal Kaspar and Pope Francis. 2
It is not good to be considered a Feeneyite if you want a career n the Catholic Church.
So the Jesuit theologians are expected to use the same irrationality they used in the Boston Case. They will present a theology again based on an irrationality. They will infer that we humans can personally see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water- and they are expected to get away with it again.
Pope Francis is counting on the Jesuit theologians to work 'the old trick' for the Synod : modus operandi
I am an admirer of Church Militant.com. I remain one of their supporters by watching the Vortex regularly.I appreciate the hard work of Michael Voris. I agree with his understanding of outside the Church there is no salvation.
However there is confusion.Since Michael accepts the liberal theology of the contemporary magisterium on this issue,as does Christine Niles. This was clear in the Mic'd Up program on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It was a good program however doctrinally and theologically Christine stayed clear of controversy, for whatever reasons.
She did not affirm the dogma in agreement with Vatican Council II.Instead she chose to interpret this issue in the same way as the SSPX ,traditionalists and sedevacantists i.e she went to the dogma for support and interpreted Vatican Council II and the Catechism, using Cushingism instead of Feeneyism.
This was a break with the pre-1949 Magisterium since she was using Cushingism.While her intepretation of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and Vatican Council II was a break with the dogma, which she affirmed. Since she was rejecting Feeneyism for irrational Cushingism.
However this program on EENS with Fr.Roman Manchester was a very good beginning on the subject of EENS. Over time she can adapt and clarify her theology and thinking.There can only be a rational or irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II with respect to EENS and it is easy and simple to choose the traditional, rational one.
What I mention in this blog post is not for the sake of criticism( I see Church Militant as a friend) but it is because I have confidence in Michael Voris and the CM staff, who I know will identify the error and correct it for the sake of Jesus and the Church.We are all working for the same aim.
If any one can bring this issue out in the open and bring the Church back on the doctrinal rails, it would be Church Militant.
Doctrinal Errors on Church Militant. com which need to be corrected.They are based on statements made on the Vortex and Mic'd Up programs.
1.Every one does not need to be a card carrying member of the Catholic Church in the present times.
2.There are people saved through Jesus and the Church in other religions and they are known to us.
3.Cushingism is correct and Feeneyism is wrong.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is accepted.
4.SSPX must accept Vatican Council II with Cushingism and not Feeneyism.
5.The SSPX is in schism for not accepting Vatican Council II with Cushingism.
6.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
7.Since the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma it is inferred that these cases are personally visible, objectively seen.
8.Lumen Gentium 16, Lumen Gentium 8, Nostra Aetate 2,Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Ad Gentes 11 ( seeds of the Word) etc contradict the rigorist interpretation of the thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
9..Vatican Council II is a break with the Syllabus of Errors.
10..The Magisterium did not make a factual error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
11. There is no mistake in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846,1257.It cannot be misunderstood.
11.Catholic children in the Archdiocese of Detroit schools are not being taught a factual error during Religion Class.
CM,SSPX,MICM deny the Faith to please superiors
Michael Voris does not say every one needs to be a card carrying member of the Church for salvation. For him there are exceptions.
Michael Voris uses liberal theology and yet critcizes Michael Coren
Apparition Theology which Church Militant and Fr.Barron accept, contradict the exclusivist ecclesiology of Augustine and Aquinas.
SSPX must continue to reject Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents interpreted with the false premise and conclusion ? : ChurchMilitant TV still does not respond
Church Militant TV's Simon Rafe and Ryan Fitzgerald will not answer : SSPX
SSPX must continue to reject Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents interpreted with the false premise and conclusion : ChurchMilitant TV comment incomplete http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/sspx-must-continue-to-reject-vatican.html
ChurchMilitantTV removes comments : irrational theology which David Obeid and Luke Macik have to teach to be approved by the bishop
Superintendents of Catholic Schools in the Archdiocese of Detroit agree : irrationality being taught in Religion Class
Bishop Arturo Cepeda, Director of the Department of Evangelization, Catechesis and Schools,Detroit has no denial : he agrees an irrationality is taught to Catholic school children
CMTV and the Archdiocese of Detroit
Mic'd Up (The Real Spirit of Vatican II) has not quoted AG 7, LG 14 which is in line with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Why should Catholic students in schools be taught all this irrationality and heresy?
Did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make a factual mistake and so school children in the Archdiocese of Detroit have to use an irrationality to interpret Vatican Council II ?
Apparition theology in Detroit
The SSPX must keep rejecting Vatican Council II according to Cushingism.
Pope Benedict expected the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) to accept Vatican Council II with the theology of Cushingism. This is doctrinal heresy
Two standards on doctrine
SSPX show the Vatican the Marchetti error carried over into Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus and other magisterial documents
Vatican Council II (premise-free) agrees with the SSPX position on an ecumenism of return and non Christians needing to convert for salvation
Church Militant TV (CMTV) could help resolve the CDF-SSPX doctrinal issue by identifying the exact doctrinal error
Mic'd Up: Catholic School Daze
This is irrationality and heresy being promoted by ' the Church' since 1949.The post 1949 Magisterium contradicts the pre-1949 Magisterium
Vocations to the religous life have to accept an irrationality in the Catechism of the Catholic Church
This is a superflous passage in Vatican Council II (LG 16)
So if LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 are not explicit for us in 2015 ( and they are not) then there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict Feeneyism.
Questions and Answers : Vatican Council II is Feeneyite. It has an exclusivist ecclesiology
Questions and Answers : Vatican Council II affirms the Social Kingship of Christ the King
Every one needs to be a card carrying member of the Catholic Church today for salvation
All the Jews in Sydney and Boston are oriented to Hell according to Vatican Council II
SSPX, MICM and traditionalists are interpreting Vatican Council II according to the Left
Those who are saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not outside the Church, they are saved with the baptism of water in the Catholic Church
Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary liberalism: same as Cardinal Walter Kaspar http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/slaves-of-immaculate-heart-of-mary.html
Compartmentalise your thinking on the baptism of desire and blood with the dogma
Ecclesiology is not changed with I.I and BOD.It never was.Vatican Council II was always orthodox on salvation.The ecclesiology was exclusivist.
Joseph Shaw would not say that all need to formally enter the Church for salvation in Britain. This would be the old ecclesiology.Instead he would say that there are exceptions. This is the new ecclesiology.
Joseph Shaw is not going to tell Muslims at Oxford that the Chuch says all need to formally enter the Church to avoid Hell. Neither is Gavin D'Costa going to say this in Bristol.
Now the error has been identified. Over time people will realize that what Feeney believed in was de fide and it was Cushing and Marchetti who were in heresy
The error was not corrected. Cushing brought it into Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) with no opposition. Even the traditionalists agreed with him!
No text in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore or the Council of Trent says there are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
We have two options. We can interpret the text either way. One way is traditional and the other is irrational
Ad Gentes 7 can be interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism
St.Thomas Aquinas was a Feeneyite
Contemporary Magisterium is in doctrinal error : Rome Vicariate, Ecclesia Dei, SSPX,FSSP,CMRI agree
I accept the Magisterium of the Catholic Church according to magisterial documents.I reject the contemporary magisterium i.e persons in power
Rome Vicariate, Ecclesia Dei, SSPX, FSSP, CMRI agree Marchetti made a mistake and Feeney was correct
John Lamont, Thomas Pink, Joseph Shaw remain politically correct and keep their mandatum to teach theology
The dogma tells us all need to be formal members of the Church and objectively we do not and cannot know of any exception
No correction has to be made in the text.I am affirming Vatican Council II when I hold the rigorist interpretation of the dogma
The Council of Trent does not state that these cases are physically or personally known to us to be exceptions to the dogma.This has to be wrongly inferred.
Without the irrational premise, inference and conclusion there is no spirit of Vatican Council II in the interpretation of the documents
Doctrinal difficulties exist within the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's position on Vatican Council II and Tradition
The Magisterium made a mistake at Vatican Council II when it accomodated the Marchetti 1949 error
Vatican Council in general is being interpreted with an irrationality.Catholics do not know that there is a choice.Eliminate the premise and the Council dramatically changes.
Pope Francis is counting on the Jesuit theologians to work 'the old trick' for the Synod : modus operandi
How can everyone be wrong and only you be correct
The 'mainstream' Church has to begin the reconciliation process with doctrinal truth.They have to admit that there are no exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma EENS, on March 19,2015
If the Holy See chooses to interpret Vatican Council without the false premise there can be a reconciliation.The announcement has first to be made by the Holy See.
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
Fr.John Zuhlsdorf does not believe in the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : advice on interfaith marriages
When the laity are aware of the false premise, they will not fall for this ruse
Once a traditionalist or sedevacantist has an insight into all this Vatican Council II dramatically changes
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
Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Mass
Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict also used the false premise and conclusion from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949
The Catechumen you refer to is a hypothetical case for you and me. So it is not an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : Fr.John Hardon too did not notice this
How can you presume to know who will be saved with the baptism of blood ( martrydom) and without the baptism of water in future or this year?
This is irrational. Even a non Catholic would realize it.Yet this is what is inferred when it is assumed there are exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 in Vatican Council II
I could interpret these passages in Vatican Council II without using the irrational premise and conclusion
So it is the same passage and we have interpreted it differently. You have used an irrational premise and I have avoided it.
Parts of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church do affirm the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney
Vatican Council says we really cannot have a reasonable hope that all men are saved