Sunday, September 20, 2015

I bambini non si comprano

Roma: manifesto contro le adozioni gay e utero in affitto. Il sindaco Marino insorge

by 
manifesti-contro-adozioni-gay-roma-e1442580520783-670x274Si è messa immediatamente in moto, a Roma, lamacchina della censura: nel giro di poche ore la giunta Marino ha assicurato la rimozione di manifesti giudicati omofobi dal gay center. «L’amministrazione capitolina è impegnata nel contrastare qualunque forma di manifestazione omofoba e continuerà nella sua battaglia per i diritti e l’educazione al rispetto», ha commentato l’assessore alla Comunicazione e alle Pari opportunità Alessandro Cattoi, esprimendo «la più ferma condanna dei manifesti contro le famiglie con genitori omosessuali».

Dici che «i bambini non si comprano»? Sei omofobo

La presa di posizione del Campidoglio è arrivata subito dopo che il portavoce del gay center di Roma, Fabrizio Marrazzo, ha bollato i manifesti in questione come «discriminanti», «vergognosi», chiara espressione di «gruppi estremisti che vogliono attaccare i gay». Ma cosa dicevano di così inaccettabile questi manifesti? Una cosa che, per la verità, non è nemmeno tanto originale e che fa tornare alla mente laFilumena Marturano di Edoardo De Filippo, quando nella scena madre della commedia ricorda che «i figli non si pagano». Qui, gli estensori del manifesto, ci ricordano che «i bambini non si comprano» e, dichiarando il loro «no alle discriminazioni», «all’utero in affitto» e «al matrimonio e alle adozioni gay», avvertono che «la cosiddetta “stepchild adoption” prevista dal disegno di legge Cirinnàsulle unioni civiliconsentirà alle coppie omosessuali di procurarsi e adottare un bambino». «Noi diciamo no», è l’ultima frase del manifesto, che anche nella grafica e nella rappresentazione di una famiglia gay non presenta alcun accento offensivo.

Il gay center chiede e la giunta Marino si scopre efficiente

Si tratta dunque di un manifesto che si limita a esprimere in maniera assolutamente civile un’opinione, per altro piuttosto diffusa tra gli italiani e non solo tra i presunti «gruppi estremisti che vogliono attaccare i gay» cui fa riferimento il gay center. Semmai da questa vicenda emergono almeno due dati che dovrebbero far preoccupare molto più di certi “al lupo, al lupo”. Il primo è tutta l’intolleranza dei gendarmi del pensiero unico, per i quali è inaccettabile che esistano opinioni altre. Fra questi – l’episodio romano ce lo ricorda con nettezza – vanno annoverate le voci più radicali della comunità Lgbt, le quali tra l’altro finiscono solo per irrigidire le posizioni su temi che invece andrebbero trattati prima di tutto all’insegna del buon senso. Il secondo è tutta la remissività di una classe politica che, pur di assecondare i diktat di alcuni gruppi di pressione, perde completamente il senso della realtà e dei bisogni della comunità che rappresenta. Comunità che, nel caso dei cittadini romani, non disdegnerebbe di vedere su servizi di base come il trasporto, la pulizia, la sicurezza almeno la metà dell’efficienza dimostrata sulla rimozione dei manifesti contro la stepchild adoption.
http://www.noaimatrimonigayinitalia.it/2015/09/18/roma-manifesto-contro-le-adozioni-gay-e-utero-in-affitto-il-sindaco-marino-insorge/

Script for video The Magisterial Heresy - 2

Part 1
This video will be technical as it shows the actual texts in magisterial documents, particularly Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church and their controversial interpretation.
Immagine correlata
 In Part 1 of the previous video 1 I spoke about the invisible-visible, abstract- concrete, subjective-objective distinction. I mentioned also that for there to be an exception, a thing must not only be different but it must exist in our reality.If there is an apple in a box of oranges then the apple is an exception because it is different and because it exists there.
I concluded by saying that we must note this this error in thinking; irrational thinking, in the interpretation of magisterial documents most importantly in Vatican Council II . Sadly, unknown to so many people, this magisterial error is being forced upon the SSPX, for canonical status. Also the Franciscans of the Immaculate, and all religous communities, have to unfortunately,accept this irrationality in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. This is a requirement of the present Magisterium for those Catholics who want to be Catholic and  have a normal status in the Catholic Church.The heresy and irrationality has been made obligatory.
The video also mentioned that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated when he did not accept being saved with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance as being implicit instead of explicit, invisible instead of visible.
While Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was excommunicated since he could not accept Vatican Council II in which LG 16, UR 3 etc are explicit instead of implicit, hypothetical possibilities instead of known cases.
They both were not willing to accept exceptions to the old ecclesiology, by mixing up what is invisible and unknown as being visible and unknown personally.They were correct.
It is a fact of life that we cannot see baptism of desire cases on earth. So if a pope or cardinal infers we can , then it is an objective error. Objectively he is wrong.
Yet popes and cardinals have accepted this error.
Not only popes and cardinals, Wikipedia on the Internet  and Catholic encylopedias also, consider LG 16 etc as being an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In other words  LG 16 is explicit, to be an exception . This is objectively wrong.
Without this objective error, this irrational reasoning, Vatican Council II is in agreement  with the old ecclesiology, the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So this is the good news.Vatican Council II can be interpreted in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors.It  is not ambiguous and no more heretical.With this rational interpretation the contemporary Magisterium would be in agreement with the pre-1808 Magisterium. So it can be assumed  that the Holy Spirit still guides the Teaching Authority of the Church, since the teachings of the past and the present , on salvation and ecclesiology, would be the same, without the irrational interpretation.

Part 2
 So then when we look at the following texts A does not contradict B.However for the contemporary Magisterium B would contradict A.

Here is the passage from Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II see how it is interpreted .

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. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity.
A
Here is the orthodox section in Ad Gentes 7  (above) which in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This passage is Feeneyite.

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

B
Here is the controversial section in Ad Gentes 7 which is interpreted correctly as referring to implicit cases or incorrectly to explicit
cases.
Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6)-Ad Gentes 7
For the contemporary Magisterium B is an exception to A. B is explicit.
For me B is not explicit but refers to cases known only to God. So B is not an exception to A.Neither does B contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Cardinal Marchetti Selvaggiani when he issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumed  being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire were explicit  and so were exceptions to the traditional Feeneyite version of the dogma on salvation.So for him B was an exception to A. So in Vatican Council II here B has been placed along side A. It would have  been approved by Cardinal Richard Cushing and the U.S Jesuits who were present at Vatican Council II.For them B was an exception to A.

Here is another example from Vatican Council II.The Magisterium when interpreting this passage assumes B is an exception to A.
14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. 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. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II
A
The following passage from Lumen Gentium 14 is orthodox and in agreement with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 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
B
The following passages from Lumen Gentium 14 also comes from the objective mistake Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani made in the Letter of the Holy Office. Why did they have to mention those saved with the baptism of desire (explicit intention) or infer there are those saved in invincible ignorance ? Why would they  be relevant to the orthodox passage above.How would they be relevant to the centuries-old dogma if they were not explicit and personally known? Why did they have to mention it in Vatican Council II?
Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-LG 14
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.-Lumen Gentium  14
For the Magisterium B would be an exeption to A in Lumen Gentium 14. For me these cases are not explicit in 2015.So B does not contradict A.

Part 3
We can  also analyse these passages in Vatican Council II with the two columns, the left hand column  and the right hand column.


All salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3),seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) are either:
LEFT HAND COLUMN................................. RIGHT HAND COLUMN
implicit                                                  or        explicit for us.
hypothetical                                          or        known in reality.
invisible                                                or        visible in the flesh.
dejure ( in principle)                             or        defacto ( in fact ).
subjective                                             or        objective.
 So one can choose from the left hand side or the right hand sidecolumn.
 If the right hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II  contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the  Syllabus of Errors  and Tradition in general  on other religions and Christian communities. There are known exceptions in 2015 to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Cathlic Church. The dead- saved are visible.So all do not have to convert into the Catholic Church in 2015.
If the left hand side column is chosen  then Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus, nor Tradition on Judaism, Islam and the other religions. All need to convert in 2015 into the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
Most people interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side values.The irrational column. 
So the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance was never ever an exception  to the literal and traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard  Feeney, unless one is using the right hand side column.There were and are no known exceptions.
In 2015-2016 the Padre Pio Prayer groups,  Neo Catechumenal Way, Charismatic Renewal, all the religious communities and most of the  Diocesan priests are using the irrational column in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. The laity have accepted theology based on an irrationality- the  ability to physically see the dead on earth! 
They have a choice. They can interpret Vatican Council II using the left hand side column.Vatican Council II will then be in accord with extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as it was interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Church Councils, popes and saints.
Part 4
IRRATIONAL PREMISE AND INFERENCE
Vatican Council II can be interpreted with an irrational premise and inference or without them.
In general it is being interpreted with an irrationality.
Catholics do not know that there is a choice.Eliminate the premise and the Council dramatically changes.

The secular media and the Magisterium use an irrational premise which is "We can see the dead who are now in Heaven, we can physically see them in Heaven and on earth".
They then make an irrational inference which is " Since we can see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water and without formal entry into the Church, there is known salvation outside the Church and these cases are an explicit exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ."
Their conclusion is : Vatican Council II is a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.


EXAMPLES OF THE  FALSE PREMISE: 
1.
Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1257) states ' Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.'
False Premise: Baptism is necessary for salvation for only those who know.We humans know and can judge 'who knows' and 'who does not know' and so will be saved or not saved.
False conclusion: All do not need to enter the Church with the baptism of water 'but only those who know.' 


The dogma instead says all need to enter the Church. The dogma does not mention any exceptions.We humans cannot judge who knows or does not know and will be saved.We do not and cannot know any one who will be saved without the baptism of water and in inculpable ignorance of the Gospel.Yet with this irrationality of 'being able to know' we have an exception made  to the dogma.

2.
CCC 1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament. 
False Premise: This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament and these cases are visible to us in the present times. 
False conclusion:This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament since there is known salvation outside the Church and these cases do not need to receive the baptism of water for salvation. They are de facto  exceptions. 
3.
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
False Premise: For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament. These cases are visible in the flesh for us humans. We personally  know and can see these people in the present times(2015). 
False conclusion:Since these cases are personally known to us they are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.So every one does not need to convert into the Catholic Church. The thrice defined dogma has been superseded by Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church with these 'visible for us cases'. 
4.
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity
False Premise: Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity' and these are not invisible for us cases but visible in the flesh people whom we personally know.
False conclusion:So every one does not need to be a de facto member of the Catholic Church for salvation.There are exceptions to John 3:5  and Mark 16:16.
This is the absurdity which Catholics have to accept! Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church contradict themself. LG 16 contradicts AG 7 and LG 14 and CCC 1257 contradicts 1258 etc.This is only because of the use of an irrational premise.

Vaican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church can be interpreted without  the irrational premise and both these magisterial documents will be traditional and rational.

Vatican Council II does not say that salvation in Heaven is visible to us.It does not say there is known salvation outside the Church.It does not state that Nostra Aetate 2Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Lumen Gentium 16, Lumen Gentium 8 are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The text does not make this inference.So I do not use the irrational inference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.This is how I interpret the Council.It is in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors,the Catechism of Pope Pius X, the Council of Trent and the rest of Tradition.There is no  hermenutic of rupture.
We have found the missing link, the missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle .We now know what makes Vatican Council II traditional or non traditional.It is: the false premise!.
We need to target the false inference and the theological train will get back on the rails.
Identify the premise and change the Church!

Part 5
I reject the Letter of the Holy Office 1949's irrational inference . I affirm Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Mystici Corporis etc without the irrational inference.I accept the parts of the Letter of the Holy Office which support Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine.
I do not claim to be able to see the dead. I believe people in general cannot see the dead-saved on earth.
For me being saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, a ray of the Truth etc are always implicit, invisible and never seen in the flesh.

For the Holy Office 1949 implicit desire , invincible ignorance etc were explicit ,objectively seen.So they were explicit exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Only if they are seen and known can they be exceptions.
I reject the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 inferring that these cases are objective exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.These cases are not relevant to his traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Fr.Leonard Feeney was not obligated to say he could see or know persons saved outside the Church. There are no such cases.
I accept Vatican Council II without the inference and reject the Holy Office Letter 1949 when it makes the inference of the dead-saved being visible and  who are exceptions to the traditional dogma.
The 'modernists in Rome' accept Vatican Council II and the Holy Office Letter with the inference.The SSPX accepts the Holy Office Letter with the inference. They reject Vatican Council II with the inference.They are not aware of a possible Vatican Council II without the inference.The sedevacantists Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae CMRI,   accept the Holy Office 1949 Letter with the irrational inference and reject Vatican Council II with that same irrational inference.
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 of the Holy Office 1949  and it 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.

Part 6
CUSHINGISM AND FEENEYISM


We can always interpret Vatican Council II with traditional Feeneyism or irrational Cushingism.


Feeneyism says every one needs to be a formal member of the Church, with faith and baptism, for salvation and there are no exceptions.
Cushingism says every one needs to enter the Church with faith and baptism for salvation but there are exceptions; there are known exceptions, so really every one does not need to enter the Church.
CUSHINGISM OR FEENEYISM


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. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6)...-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II.
FEENEYISM (rational): The orange text does not contradict the text in yellow since the cases referred to are not known to us, personally .We do not know and cannot know these cases. So they are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
CUSHINGISM( irrational): The orange text contradicts the text in yellow .It is assumed that these cases are known to us in the present times. We can physically see the dead who are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.-Catechism of the Catholic Church 846

FEENEYISM (rational): The orange text does not contradict the text in yellow since the cases referred to are not known to us, personally .We do not know and cannot know these cases. So they are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
CUSHINGISM( irrational): The orange text contradicts the text in yellow .It is assumed that these cases are known to us in the present times. We can see the dead who are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. 
Feeneyism is the official teaching of the Catholic Church unless one assumes implicit for us baptism of desire is explicit for us.


According to Feeneyism every one needs to enter the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism' and there are no exceptions.
According to Feeneyism the baptism of desire is not an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
According to Cushingism every one does not need to enter the Catholic Church with faith and baptism in 2014 and there are exceptions.
According to Cushingism the baptism of desire is an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
According to Feeneyism Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) is not an exception to Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism) and the dogma on exclusive salvation. Vatican Council II is not confusing.
According to Cushingism Lumen Gentium 16 is an exception.Vatican Council II contradicts itself.
Feeneyism says there are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Cushingism says there are exceptions. Cushingism is heresy.
The Society of St.Pius X, Fischer More College and other traditionalists have been using Cushingism. For liberals Cushingism is the basis for liberalism and dissent with reference to Vatican Council II.

DOMINUS IESUS
Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”.77 This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.-Dominus Iesus 20.

The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”,79 since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God's plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being.80 For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation... -Dominus Iesus 20

FEENEYISM: The orange text does not contradict the text in yellow since the cases referred to are defacto not known to us, personally .We do not know and cannot know these cases. So they are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
CUSHINGISM: The orange text contradicts the text in yellow .It is assumed that thse cases are known to us in the present times. We can see the dead who are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.-Catechism of the Catholic Church 846
FEENEYISM: The orange text does not contradict the text in yellow since the cases referred to are defacto not known to us, personally .We do not know and cannot know these cases. So they are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
CUSHINGISM: The orange text contradicts the text in yellow .It is assumed that thse cases are known to us in the present times. We can see the dead who are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

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. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel...-Ad Gentes 7
FEENEYISM: The orange text does not contradict the text in yellow since the cases referred to are defacto not known to us, personally .We do not know and cannot know these cases. So they are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
CUSHINGISM: The orange text contradicts the text in yellow .It is assumed that thse cases are known to us in the present times. We can see the dead who are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 (POPE PIUS XII)
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it...
Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth...
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

FEENEYISM: The orange text does not contradict the text in yellow since the cases referred to are defacto not known to us, personally .We do not know and cannot know these cases. So they are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
CUSHINGISM: The orange text contradicts the text in yellow .It is assumed that thse cases are known to us in the present times. We can see the dead who are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

QUANTO CONFICIAMUR, POPE PIUS IX

7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion...
8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior."[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;"[5] "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;"[6] "He who does not believe will be condemned;"[7] "He who does not believe is already condemned;"[8] "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;"[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them "false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction."-Quanto Conficiamur,Pope Pius IX,1863
FEENEYISM: The orange text does not contradict the text in yellow since the cases referred to are defacto not known to us, personally .We do not know and cannot know these cases. So they are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
CUSHINGISM: The orange text contradicts the text in yellow .It is assumed that thse cases are known to us in the present times. We can see the dead who are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
There can be only one rational interpretation of these magisterial texts. If one assumes that the text in orange is an exception to the text in yellow, it would be implying that we can see the dead saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire who are known exceptions to the text in yellow.
So the official teaching of the Catholic Church on salvation,before and after Vatican Council II has not changed-unless one is using Cushingism in the interpretation.

____________________________
 


Part 7

THREE IRRATIONAL POINTS AND TWO QUESTIONS

Here are the three irrational points commonly used to interpret Magisterial documents.
1.Someone in the past is an exception to the dogma in September 2015.
2.Someone living will be an exception to the dogma today since he will be saved without faith and baptism.As if we can know!
3.Someone in Heaven is an exception to the dogma on earth.As if we can see people in Heaven.This is the dead-man walking theory!
So they are unable to answer these TWO QUESTIONS:

2.
The two questions are:-
1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2013 ?                                                               Answer: NO
2) Since we do not know any of these cases, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?                                                      Answer: THERE ARE NONE.
Ask two simple questions and see where they lead.These are common sense rational questions and not theology.

Common sense tells us that there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam defined by three Church Councils and which Pope Pius XII called an 'infallible statement'.
Now apply this knowledge to magisterial texts.Here is one for example.


DOMINUS IESUS
Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”.77 This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.
The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”,79 since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God's plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being.80 For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation... -Dominus Iesus 20
The passage in orange is not an exception to the passage in yellow.
To assume that the passage in orange is an exception to the passage in yellow is irrationality. It is also saying that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is heresy.
Cushingism states all do not need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation in the present times and there are known exceptions. Cushingism indicates that the passage in orange is an exception to the passage in yellow.This was the public position of the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits there who sought the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney. It was Cardinal Richard Cushing who was irrational and in heresy and not Fr.Leonard Feeney.
-Lionel Andrades




1

Script for video The Magisterial Heresy


Questions and Answers : Vatican Council II is Feeneyite. It has an exclusivist ecclesiology http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/questions-and-answers-vatican-council.html
Questions and Answers : Did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make a factual mistake ? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/questions-and-answers-did-letter-of.html
Questions and Answers : Evangelizing with Vatican Council II