Friday, October 16, 2015

The Magisterial Heresy - 3

In The Magisterial Heresy- 2  I showed through texts in Vatican Council 2 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church that there could be two interpretations, one rational and the other irrational.B could be an exception to or it could not be an exception.It depends on the explicit-implicit , invisible-visible distinction.
The Magisterium and the secular media use the irrational reasoning.So B is an exception to . For me, it is not.
 We can choose to interpret Vatican Council II according toFeeneyism or Cushingism.
The Vatican Curia, traditionalists and liberals use Cushingism. SoB is an exception to A.
In this video I will show you the actual texts in which they make this mistake.

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION, VATICAN 
Christianity and the World Religions (1997)
'10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22)...'-International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions 
Lionel: The International Theological Commission(ITC) is implying here that the the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church are visible for us.The ITC is using theright hand column.

67. Vatican Council II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But in using it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation. The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII, but emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this expression.-Christianity and the World Religions 1997,International Theological Commission
Lionel: The International Theological Commission,Vatican is implying here that only those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation are visible for us.For the ITC these cases are relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They are exceptions.Those who 'know' are known only to God.They implicit for us.Yet the ITC is using the irrational right hand column,mentioned in the last video


66. In his encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pius XII addresses the question, How are those who attain salvation outside visible communion with the Church related to her? He says that they are oriented to the mystical body of Christ by a yearning and desire of which they are not aware (DS 3821).-Christianity and the World Religions 2007
Lionel:
Yes they can be saved theoretically followed by the baptism of water and we do not know who are these cases specifically. So one cannot imply that those saved with the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma. They are not explicit. So why mention something which is irrelevant?

The opposition of the American Jesuit Leonard Feeney, who insisted on the exclusivist interpretation of the expression extra ecclesiam nulla solus, afforded the occasion for the letter of the Holy Office, dated 8 August ,1949, to the archbishop of Boston, which rejected Feeney s interpretation and clarified the teaching of Pius XII.
Lionel:
'who insisted on the exclusivist interpretation'.
There is no more an exclusivist interpretation for the ITC since there are 'explicit exceptions'?! 


With the doctrine about the Church as the universal sacrament of salvation or the sacrament of the kingdom of God, theology seeks to respond to the new way of posing the problem.


Lionel: That the Church is the universal sacrament of salvation or the sacrament of the kingdom of God is theoretical and a general statement.It  does not conflict with the traditional exclusivist interpretation of the dogma which says all need to formally enter the Church in the present times.There can be those saved  in invincible ignorance etc and it would be known only to God.
So what is hypothetical and theoretical for us cannot be a concrete exception to the dogma.It is not a concrete case in our reality

63. The primary question today is not whether men can attain salvation even if they do not belong to the visible Catholic Church; this possibility is considered theologically certain.


Lionel: Yes and it does not conflict with the literal interpretation of the dogma since we do not know who are these exceptional cases, they are known only to God.They are only possibilities and possibilities cannot be defacto exceptions to the dogma, for example, in 2015.


65. One speaks of the necessity of the Church for salvation in two senses: the necessity of belonging to the Church for those who believe in Jesus and the necessity for salvation of the ministry of the Church which, on mission from God, must be at the service of the coming of the kingdom of God.

Lionel: There is the necessity of belonging to the Church for all with no exception on earth. Since we do not know who is in invincible ignorance and will be saved. Only God can judge. We humans cannot distinguish between those who believe and will be saved and those who are in invincible ignorance and will be saved without the baptism of water.
According to the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, Protestants and Orthodox Christians need to convert to avoid the fires of Hell. According to Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14), allneed faith and baptism for salvation.

66. In his encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pius XII addresses the question, How are those who attain salvation outside visible communion with the Church related to her? He says that they are oriented to the mystical body of Christ by a yearning and desire of which they are not aware (DS 3821).

Lionel: In Mystici Corporis, Pius XII does not state that these cases are explicit or that they are exceptions to the strict and traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. 
So there is an irrational premise and inference made here by Fr.Luiz Ladaria S.J the President of the ITC and Fr. Charles Morerod O.P the Secretary and other members of the ITC who formed part of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.They included Cardinal Gerhard Muller and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia.
They wrongly inferred that those saved with the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma. In other words they are known, to be exceptions.

The letter distinguishes between the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation (necessitas praecepti) and the necessity of the indispensable means of salvation (intrinseca necessitas); in relationship to the latter, the Church is a general help for salvation (DS 3867—69).In the case of invincible ignorance the implicit desire of belonging to the Church suffices; this desire will always be present when a man aspires to conform his will to that of God (DS 3870). But faith, in the sense of Hebrews 11:6, and love are always necessary with intrinsic necessity (DS 3872).

Lionel: How can someone unknown be an exception to the dogma ? In ' the case of invincible ignorance the implicit desire of belonging to the Church suffices'. This is  hypothetical.It is a non existing case in our reality. Defacto, in reality every one with no exception needs to enter the Church for salvation and we do not know any such hypothetical case.This was an objective mistake made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

68. In contrast to Pius XII, the council refused to speak of a votum implicitum (implicit desire) and applied the concept of the votum only to the explicit desire of catechumens to belong to the Church (LG 14). With regard to non-Christians, it said that they are ordered in diverse ways to the people of God. In accord with the different ways with which the salvific will of God embraces non-Christians, the council distinguished four groups: first, Jews; second, Muslims; third, those who without fault are ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and do not know the Church but who search for God with a sincere heart and try to fulfill his will as known through conscience; fourth, those who without fault have not yet reached an express knowledge of God but who nonetheless try to lead a good life (LG 16).
Lionel: Is Lumen Gentium  16 (LG 16) which is cited here explicit or implicit? For the ITC it is explicit and so is an exception to the dogma. LG 16 refers to a hypothetical case known only to God. We do not know  'those who without fault are ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and do not know the Church but who search for God with a sincere heart and try to fulfill his will as known through conscience; fourth, those who without fault have not yet reached an express knowledge of God but who nonetheless try to lead a good life (LG 16).'-and who will go to Heaven.This is a common error.
LG 16 is being used in Pontifical Universities to change ecclesiology.The new ecclesiology being taught is based on this precise mistake. They mix up what is invisible as being visible.

69. The gifts which God offers all men for directing themselves to salvation are rooted, according to the council, in his universal salvific will (LG 2, 3, 26; AG 7). The fact that even non-Christians are ordered to the people of God is rooted in the fact that the universal call to salvation includes the vocation of all men to the catholic unity of the people of God (LG 13). The council holds that the close relationship of both vocations is rooted in the unique mediation of Christ, who in his body that is the Church makes himself present in our midst (LG 14).
Lionel: The ITC states 'The fact that even non-Christians are ordered to the people of God is rooted in the fact that the universal call to salvation includes the vocation of all men to the catholic unity of the people of God' (LG 13). Is it a fact? We do not know any such case.There is no known case of a non Catholic being saved without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.There was no known case in 1949 when the Letter of the Holy Office  was issued. There was no known case before 1949. Humanly speaking we cannot know any such case.So how can a hypothetical possibility , which could be followed with the baptism of water, be considered ' a fact'. With or without the baptism of water there is no known case of salvation outside the Church.While the dogma says outside the Church there is no salvation.

41. The semina verbi, "seeds of the word", can be found outside the limits of the visible Church and specifically in the different religions; this motif is frequently combined with that of the light which enlightens all men and with that of the preparation for the Gospel (AG 11, 15; LG 16, 17; NA 2; Redemptoris missio, 56).
Lionel:
How can we humans know of someone saved  without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water and with the 'seeds of the Word'(AG 11) or that 'ray of the Truth'(NA 2) ? There is no known case past or present.So why is it assumed that AG 11 and NA 2 refer to known cases? Why are they linked to the dogma when these cases are invisible? This is an objective mistake of the ITC.

42. The theology of the seeds of the word stems from Saint Justin Martyr.
Lionel:
O.K there could be someone with the seeds of the Word somewhere 'out there'.Why suggest these cases are known and then why link them to the dogma? This is irrational reasoning.

 Faced with the polytheism of the Greek world, Justin sees in philosophy an ally of Christianity since it has followed reason; now this reason is found in its totality only in Jesus Christ, the Logos in person. Only Christians know the Logos in its entirety.3 But the whole human race has participated in this Logos. Hence from the beginning there have been those who have lived in accordance with the Logos, and in this sense there have been "Christians" even though the knowledge they have had of the seminal Logos has only been partial.4
Lionel:
Who are they personally ? Were there any such known cases in 1997? Are there any in 2015? This is all speculation.
The ITC will presume these cases are known and then posit this against the dogma.

 There is a great difference between the seed of something and the thing itself.
Lionel:
We don't know the difference between the seed of something which leads to salvation and 'the thing' itself. This would be known only to God. This is also something abstract and not concrete. It is not a 'thing'.
 But in any case the partial and seminal presence of the Logos is a gift and a divine grace. The Logos is the power of these "seeds of truth".- Christianity and the World Religions 1997
Lionel:
And since they are known only to the Logos and are unknown to us they are not relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which says all need to be formal members of the Church in the present times, to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. The dogma does not mention any exceptions.

The study of the theme "Christianity and the World Religions" was adopted for study by a large majority of the members of the International Theological Commission. To prepare this study a subcommission was established composed of Bishop Norbert Strotmann Hoppe, M.S.C.; Rev. Barthelemy Adoukonou; Rev. Jean Corbon; Rev. Mario de Franca Miranda, S.J.; Rev. Ivan Golub; Rev. Tadahiko Iwashima, S.J.; Rev. Luis F. Ladaria, S.J. (president); Rev. Hermann J. Pottmeyer; and Rev. Andrzej Szostek, M.I.C. General discussion on this theme took place during several meetings of the subcommission and in the plenary sessions of the International Theological Commission held at Rome in 1993, 1994 and 1995. The present text was approved "in forma specifica" by vote of the commission on 30 September 1996 and was submitted to its president, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who has given his approval for its publication.
____________________________


The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptised (2007)

59. The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) offers further specifications. “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens.

When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”. The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without the being baptized', International Theological Commission,2007
(Lionel: The International Theological Commission,Vatican is implying here that being saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water; having an implicit desire, refer to cases who  are visible to us.For the ITC these cases are relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They are exceptions.The ITC is using the irrational  right hand column.)

58. In the face of new problems and situations and of an exclusive interpretation of the adage: “salus extra ecclesiam non est”,[88] the magisterium, in recent times, has articulated a more nuanced understanding as to the manner in which a saving relationship with the Church can be realized. The Allocution of Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam (1854) clearly states the issues involved: “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it, will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord”- The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptized(2007. International Theological Commission) http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_index-doc-pubbl_en.html
(Lionel:The Allocution of Pope PIus IX clearly does not state in the passage cited above that those saved in invincible ignorance are explicitly known and so are exceptions to the dogma. The dogmasays whoever does not enter into the Church will perish. The Church Councils and popes knew this. 
This unfortunately was the error of the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing and the Jesuits there.They first assumed that these cases were explicit and without the baptism of water and then they linked it to the dogma as an exception.)
59. The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) offers further specifications. “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens.
Lionel:
 Yes in principle a person can be saved with the baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water. In reality, explicitly we do not know any case of a person saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire,with or without the baptism of water. So it is not an issue with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So why mention 'that one can belong' to the Church ' at least in desire and longing'? 

The ITC mentioned it since they were confused. They assumed these were explicit, known cases in the present times.

When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”.
Lionel:
Yes and the International Theological Commission (ITC) assumes that these cases are explicit and known in reality so they contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
_______________________________


PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY

In the course of the Council the “subsistit in” took the place of the previous “est”.[7] It contains in nuce the whole ecumenical problem.[8] The “est” claimed that the church of Christ Jesus “is” the Catholic Church. This strict identification of the church of Christ Jesus with the Catholic Church had been represented most recently in the encyclicals Mystici corporis (1943) and Humani generis (1950).[9] But even according to Mystici corporis there are people who, although they have not yet been baptised, are subsumed under the Catholic Church because that is their express desire (DS 3921). Therefore Pius XII had condemned an exclusive interpretation of the axiom “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” already in 1949.[10]
The Council went a decisive step further with the aid of the “subsistit in”. It wished to do justice to the fact that there are found outside of the Catholic Church not only individual Christians but also “elements of the church”,[11] indeed churches and ecclesial communities which, although not in full communion, rightly belong to the one church and possess salvatory significance for their members (LG, 8, 15; UR, 3; UUS, 10-14). Thus the Council is aware that there are outside of the Catholic Church forms of sanctification which even extend as far as martyrdom (LG, 15; UR, 4; UUS, 12, 83). The question of the salvation of non-Catholics is now no longer answered personally as in Mystici corporis on the basis of the subjective desire of single individuals, but institutionally on the basis of objective ecclesiology.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/card-kasper-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20041111_kasper-ecumenism_en.html

Lionel :
The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity claims Pope Pius XII condemned an exclusive interpretation of the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since for the Pontifical Council those saved in invincible ignorance are assumed to be explicitly known.So these 'known' cases would contradict the exclusive interpretation of the dogma.This is irrational reasoning.
Secondly this is a factual error also because the text of Mystici Corporis and Humani generic do not make this claim.There is  no mention of explicit cases.
These Magisterial documents refer to  those who can be saved in invincible ignorance but nowhere  makes the claim that these cases contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Instead Pope Pius XII in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mentions ‘the dogma’, ‘the infallible statement’. The text of the dogma indicates all non Catholics, specifically Orthodox Christians and Protestants, are oriented to the fires of Hell, unless they convert into the Catholic Church.(Cantate Domino,Council of Florence. This was the teaching of 'the dogma', the 'infallible teaching'.


The Council for Christian Unity, Vatican says: 

But even according to Mystici corporis there are people who, although they have not yet been baptised, are subsumed under the Catholic Church because that is their express desire (DS 3921).
Lionel:Yes they can receive salvation (LG 16) and these cases are known only to God. Since they are not explicitly known to us they do not contradict the dogma or Vatican Council II (LG 14,AG 7).They cannot be exceptions to the exclusivist interpretation of the dogma.
Therefore Pius XII had condemned an exclusive interpretation of the axiom “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” already in 1949.
Lionel:
If the pope assumed that invisible cases are visible then he made an objective mistake.However  Mystici Corporis nor Human Generic makes this error.Instead the inference is wrongly made by the Council for Christian Unity and the International Theological Commission.It is a factual error on their part.It is a fact of life that there are no such cases. It is also a fact that the text of these two Magisterial documents do make the wrong inference.

_________________________________

VATICAN COUNCIL FOR THE CLERGY



2.2.3. La condanna dell'indifferentismo e del razionalismo

La sempre maggiore conoscenza della vastità del fenomeno religioso finì per porre il cristianesimo a fianco delle altre religioni.
Naturalmente il rischio del relativismo e dell'indifferentismo era a questo punto assai forte e contro di esso intervenne il magistero della chiesa cattolica. Da qui un certo ritorno alla posizione rigorista che si può cogliere con chiarezza prima nella condanna di Felicité de Lamennais ad opera di papa Gregorio XVI, poi dagli interventi papa Pio IX e infine nello schema preparatorio De ecclesia del Concilio Vaticano I.
Nell'enciclica Mystici corporis di papa Pio XII del 29 giugno 1943 viene messa a tema ancora una volta la questione dell'appartenenza alla chiesa che si realizza visibilmente solo grazie al battesimo, alla professione della vera fede e alla comunione ecclesiale. Centrale è qui l'affermazione che la chiesa corpo di Cristo si identifica con la chiesa cattolica romana. Quanti le sono ancora estranei, possono però essere ordinati ad essa, sia pure per un inconsapevole desiderio o voto e solo così poter sperare nella salvezza.
Infine un ulteriore pronunciamento magisteriale fu provocato dall'insegnamento di alcuni teologi americani che interpretavano l'assioma Extra ecclesiam nulla salus in senso rigorista, concedendo la salvezza solo ai battezzati cattolici e a quei catecumeni che avessero esplicitamente chiesto di entrare nella chiesa cattolica. Il vescovo di Boston, Mons. Cushing, chiese l'intervento del Sant' Ufficio, la cui risposta, pur riaffermando la dignità dogmatica dell'assioma, ne condannò l'interpretazione rigorista riprendendo le tesi dell'ignoranza invincibile e del voto implicito (Cfr. DS, 3866-3873. Tra questi il gesuita P. Leonard Feeney, non accettò le indicazioni del magistero e subì la scomunica il 4 febbraio 1953).
Lionel: 
The Vatican website for clergy (clerus.org) has made available a lengthy report in Italian by Father Alberto Sartori, President of the Commission for the Clergy in which he rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He claims the Magisterium condemned Fr.Leonard Feeney for his 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma.(See above in Italian)
Fr.Sartori,the  Director of the Interdiocesan  Theological School of Formation,Italy  states that Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis implies or says that  there can be non Catholics saved who are not members of the Catholic Church visibly. They could be saved with a baptism of desire.
Don Sartori assumes that we know these cases explicitly otherwise how could they be exceptions. They would have to be visible tobe exceptions.
He believes these cases are explicit so they also contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston. Mystici Corporis does not state that these are explicitly known cases.
However the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 does make this wrong inference.
 It has been known for centuries that these are implicit cases and so they do not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
________________________________

WIKIPEDIA ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM  NULLA SALUS

CATHOLIC CHURCH ELUCIDATIONS

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Church states that the phrase, "Outside the Church there is no salvation", means, if put in positive terms, that "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body", and "is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church".
Lionel: 
Wikipedia means the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the  dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They are exceptions to the statements of the popes on extra ecclesiam nulla salus whom Wikpedia quotes. So for Wikipedia , like the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) ' all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body'.
At the same time, it adds: "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."
Lionel:
Those saved in invincible ignorance, are assumed to be persons saved without the baptism of water. They are allegedly explicit, for them to be exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.
The Church has also declared that "she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter", and that "those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."
Lionel:
Again it is being implied that there are cases of non Catholics who are baptised and who are saved and these cases are visible, objective and concrete. So they become relevant to the dogma and the statements of the popes on extra ecclesiam nulla  salus. They are objective exceptions for Wikipedia.
This is irrational and Magisterial, so no one corrects Wikipedia.
__________________________

WIKIPEDIA ON VATICAN COUNCIL II AND EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

Second Vatican Council

The Second Vatican Council declared that the Christian communities that are not in full communion, but only in "partial communion"[13]with the Catholic Church, "though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church".
Lionel: These cases mentioned in Unitatitus Redintigratio 3 are hypothetical and not personally known. They cannot be objective cases.So they are not relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

 It explained that "some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ."
Lionel:Yes there are good things in other religions.Here it is being implied that there are known cases of Protestants who are saved with the good things in their religion without being members of the Catholic Church. There is no such case.

The Council also said that even those who do not believe in Christ are related to the Church: "All men are called to be part of this catholic unity of the people of God which in promoting universal peace presages it. And there belong to or are related to it in various ways, the Catholic faithful, all who believe in Christ, and indeed the whole of mankind, for all men are called by the grace of God to salvation."
Lionel:
Yes all are called. Those who do not enter are oriented to Hell.

 However, it added immediately that those who, "knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved".
Lionel:
This is a reference to  hypothetical cases.Since we humans cannot tell who know or do not know and will be saved or not saved, without being formal members of the Church.
The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and  Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) state all need to enter the Church with 'faith and baptism'.

 In this way, the Catholic Church teaches that any person who knows that the Catholic Church is necessary for eternal salvation and knowingly rejects the Church with deliberate consent cannot be saved.
Lionel:
Yes the Catholic Church teaches this.
It also teaches that all need faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7, LG 14).

 On the other hand, "those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life."
Lionel: This is a reference to Lumen Gentium 16. For Wikipedia LG 16 refers to explicit cases without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. So LG 16 is an exception to the dogma. There is no such case known in the present times or in the past.This is irrational reasoning.
 In its decree on missionary activity, the Council, quoting Lumen gentium, 14, said: "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.'
Lionel:
In the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 it was wrongly assumed that being saved in invincible ignorance was explicit. So it became an exception to the Feeneyite version of the dogma. This error was placed in Vatican Council II.
Every one needs to enter the Church for salvation.Those who 'know' or 'do not know' will be decided by God.

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, yet a necessity lies upon the Church, and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel."
Lionel: Why mention those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel ? We cannot meet them on the streets. We cannot say that a particular person will be saved in his inculpable ignorance and so does not have to convert into the Catholic Church.
______________________

WIKIPEDIA ON DOMINUS IESUS

Dominus Iesus

The 2000 declaration Dominus Iesus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states that "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."
Lionel:
Dominus Iesus supports the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salushere. It supports the Feeneyite version of the dogma.

 It then adds that "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. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit; it has a relationship with the Church, which, according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit."
Lionel: These are not defacto known cases in the present times.So it can be accepted as referring to abstract cases, it is accepted in theory. These  cases however cannot be linked to the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus.Since they are not defacto known in 2015 .They are irrelevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Inculpable ignorance

In its statements of this doctrine, the Church expressly teaches that "it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God";
Lionel: Acceptable but this should not be linked to the dogma.It has no connection with all needing to be formal members of the Church in the present times; today, this month, this year.

 that "outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control";[6] and that "they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life."[8]
Lionel: Theoretical cases, they are irrelevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Inculpable ignorance is not a means of salvation.[21] But if by no fault of the individual ignorance cannot be overcome (if, that is, it is inculpable and invincible), it does not prevent the grace that comes from Christ, a grace that has a relationship with the Church, saving that person. Thus it is believed that God would make known to such a person before the moment of death, by either natural or supernatural means, the Catholic faith, since "without [such] faith it is impossible to please God", and this entails, for even the unbaptized, at the very least baptism of desire.
Lionel: This is fine as a theoretical discussion on this subject but it should not have been placed under the title extra ecclesiam nulla salus or Feeneyism.
-Lionel Andrades
The Magisterial Heresy -1
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/the-magisterial-heresy.html

Magisterial Heresy -2
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/magisterial-heresy-2.html

The Magisterial Heresy - 3
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/the-magisterial-heresy-3.html

Magisterial Heresy -2

The Magisterial Heresy-2 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 I mentioned 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.
In Part 1 I  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 would contradictA.

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 thoughGod 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 AB is explicit.
For me B is not explicit but refers to cases known only to God. SoB is not an exception to A.Neither does B contradict the dogmaextra 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 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 Bdoes 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 withoutthem.
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 inyellow .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 inyellow .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 yellowsince 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 yellowsince 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 yellowsince 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 yellowsince 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 yellowsince 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 inyellow.
To assume that the passage in orange is an exception to thepassage in yellow is irrationality. It is also saying that there areknown 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

The Magisterial Heresy -1

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/the-magisterial-heresy.html