Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Fr.Zuhlsdorf defends not giving the Eucharist to Lutherans , but does this without any reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Related image
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf defends not giving the Eucharist at Holy Mass to Lutherans but he does this with no reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Since he supports Cushingism and rejects Feeneyism. So for him there are exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.Not all Lutherans need to convert Fr. Zuhlsdorf?
For him the baptism of desire(BOD) and blood (BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I), refer to personally known persons in 2015 who all are visible in Heaven or going to be visible in Heaven, without the baptism of water.
So they are exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
This was the objective error of the Holy Office in 1949.He supports it.So does Pope Benedict and Pope Francis.
Being a Cushingite Fr.Z cannot cite EENS as a reason for not giving the Eucharist to the Lutherans. He cannot say Lutherans are outside the Church and there is no known case  of a Lutheran being saved outside the Church. He cannot say that there is no known case of any one being saved outside the Church since being a Cushingite he assumes there is salvation outside the Catholic Church and all do not need to be formal members with faith and baptism.
For Fr. Zuhlsdorf, Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) would also have to be an explicit case, objectively seen today.So Vatican Council II is a break with EENS for him. It is the same with Pope Francis.
Since there is salvation outside the Catholic Church for Pope Francis he will give the Eucharist to the Lutherans and other Protestants.One does not have to be a Catholic to be saved for Pope Francis.
Also for Fr. Zuhsdorf one does not need to be a Catholic to be saved since BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS and the old ecclesiology.However he believes the Lutherans should not be given the Eucharist based on pre- 1808 Church-doctrines.
Before the confusion in the 1808 Baltimore Catechism, the ecclesiology of the Church was exclusivist.There was exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church. Lutherans are on the way to Hell said St. Theresa of Avila. She was saying extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Lutherans were heretics and outside the Church.
However unlike Theresa of Avila and the saints,  for Pope Francis there is no objective reality.He claims individual conscience is supreme.This is his opening to all types of heresy and sacrilege.
Fr. Zuhlsdorf does not believe individual conscience is supreme for salvation. He believes in an objective reality , but like Pope Francis he also believes the Church has changed its teachings on the dogma defined by three Church Councils.
-Lionel Andrades

Michael Matt's response to the Paris terror is the same as Pope Francis

Michael Matt says on the video (7:36) 'most important, the only way out of this is for the Catholic Church to restore her Tradition, to go back to her roots to rise up as the mighty moral authority that gave compass to the entire world Catholic or not for two thousand years, this is the only way, the only reason we have chaos is because the Catholic Church has reneged on her own claim to be the sole means of salvation, the true Church founded by Jesus Christ.'

For the Magisterium doctrinally the Catholic Church in 2015 is not that of the one in pre 1808 times.This has been accepted by the traditionalists and sedevancantists.They have accepted the magisterial doctrinal error on salvation and they are part of the problem.
If they were part of the solution they would be announcing that the Catholic Church teaches according to Vatican Council II, Muslims are on the way to Hell-fire at the time of death unless they convert into the Catholic Church.
This is not possible since Michael Matt has rejected Feeneyism and accepted Cushingism.Cushingism is irrational and heretical and supported by the Masons and the contemporary magisterium of the Church.Cardinals Muller, Kasper, Koch and Marx are Cushingites. So was Cardinal Ratzinger.The proof is there in their public statements.
Cushingites will not say that Pope Pius XII made an objective error when he assumed the baptism of desire (BOD), baptism of blood (BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) all without the baptism of water, were exceptions to the traditional Feeneyite interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
For me since that time ecclesiology has radically changed in the Church. Pope Pius XII is the Father of the New Theology. The Catholic Church ' reneged on her own claim to be the sole means of salvation, the true Church founded by Jesus Christ.'
For me BOD, BOB and I.I are not explicit.So they are not exceptions to the dogma EENS as interpreted by the Feeneyities St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine,St. Anthony Marie Claret, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Maximillian Kolbe and other saints and popes.So there cannot be a new ecclesiology. There cannot be anything in Vatican Council II to contradict Feeneyism.So I interpret Vatican Council II as a Feeneyite.
According to Vatican Council II 'all' Muslims  and other non Christians  need 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14) for salvation.There are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II for me, since LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc are invisible and known only to God. Vatican Council II for me is in agreement with the dogma EENS when it tells us all need to be formal members of the Church, all need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church to avoid the fires of Hell, as does Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441.
According to Vatican Council II all Muslims are oriented to the fires of Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.
So why cannot Michael Matt say this? Why cannot Rorate Caeili or Christopher Ferrara mention this?
Why cannot Michael Matt admit that Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops are Cushingites  like the magisterial Curia of Pope Francis?
If Michael Matt would affirm the Catholic Faith like me, then when the opposition says the Church has changed its teachings after Vatican Council II , he could cite the text of Vatican Council II  which contradicts them (AG 7, LG 14).
If they say LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 and NA 2 are exceptions to EENS he could mention that these citations refer to cases which are invisible for us and known only to God.Invisible cases cannot be de facto exceptions in 2015  to all needing to enter the Church. Hypothetical cases cannot be objective exceptions in the present times.Theoretical cases are zero cases in our reality.Possibilities are not known realities.
In this way there would be unity in doctrine for Michael Matt .Vatican Council II does not contradict itself(LG 16 vs AG 7)  and it does not contradict the dogma on salvation (LG 16 vs EENS). Vatican Council II is not a break with the Feeneyites St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ignatius of Loyola, St.Francis Xavier, St. Robert Bellarmine -and of course, Fr.Leonard Feeney.Our position on Islam today is the same as all of  them.
So when will Michael Matt announce this?
There are so many lay supporters of the SSPX who are in confusion about Islam.They are Cushingites who support Feeneyite saints.They are aware of the obvious gap in theology.They know there is confusion in the Church and they wrongly blame it on Vatican Council II.
Michael Matt mentions the vapid response of Pope Francis' secular political leaders - but neither has Michael Matt or the SSPX leaders issued a statement saying that the Catholic Church still teaches that all Muslims are on the way to the fires of Hell, without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.
-Lionel Andrades

The new theology of the sedevacantists and traditionalists like that of the liberals says all Muslims do not need to convert into the Catholic Church

Sedevantists and traditionalists are not  aware of having used an irrational premise to misinterpret Vatican Council II since  the same irrational premise has been used by the Magisterium; the contemporary Magisterium, which for them cannot  be wrong or politicised. They believe  that the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII could not be wrong.So they accept changes in Catholic -teaching. They have changed the meaning theologically of the Nicene Creed, the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS and the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra. They have accepted a new theology based on an irrational premise. They condemn Feeneyism and support Cushingism.
It means like the liberals they say, for example, that all Muslims do not need to convert into the Church for salvation.Or in other words, all do need to convert except for those in invincible ignorance and/or with the baptism of desire and blood and are  saved without the baptism of water.
So like the liberals the bottom line  still is :  that all do not need to convert, the Catholic Church is not the one true Church for all ( but only for most people or many people  who need to convert), the popes made an error ex cathedra( so the dogma EENS has been changed and is irrelevant) and of course, Vatican Council II is a break with the past.Since, BOD, BOB and I.I refer to known cases, Vatican Council II contradicts Tradition, the dogma EENS etc.
This is their irrational and complicated theology, which is the same as the liberals and the contemporary Magisterium.
They are unable to say that the Magisterium made a mistake and that they also, traditionalists, have a made a doctrinal mistake.
In his new blog post Terrorized By Ecumenism IAAD on the blog Introibo Ad Altare Dei comments on Islam and is unaware that he holds the same position theologically, as the liberals and Masons, on Islam.

Since for him there is known salvation outside the Church as it was for Pope Pius XII and the popes who followed. So IAAD like the popes rejects the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. The sedes and trads  reject Feeneyism and support Cushingism i.e there are known exceptions to EENS.(There are known Muslims who do not need to convert for salvation?)
This is also the position of the SSPX.They are simply following Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. So there is no real opposition to the liberal and magisterial  error coming from the traditionalists and sedevancantists.
They have accepted the change in doctrine in the Catholic Church. For even conservatives, like Cardinal Raymond  Burke , it is magisterial to accept Cushingism and reject Feeneyism.
So when IAAD discusses Islam, he is criticizing the religion based on Tradition which preceded the BOD- BOB- is- visible theology.At the same time he accepts a theology,which says BOD, BOB being visible, are exceptions to Tradition.They  are exceptions to the traditional dogmatic teachng on other religions and ecumenism.They are exceptions to the pre-1808 theology. This is the common dual position of the traditionalists and sedevacantists.
 So IAAD has a dual position on ecumenism. He rejects the magisterial ecumenism only based on post 1808 theology(which he uses and is unaware of ) while he accepts the post 1808 theology which affirms Cushingism. The post 1808 theology, especially after the Boston case in 1949, says not every one needs to convert in the present times.So here he unknowingly promotes the view that the Catholic Church is the one true Church only for many and not all people, since there are  'visible' exceptions.So all Muslims do not need to convert for him.
When this is brought to his attention he will deny it. He will say that every one needs to enter the Church ( he is referring to pre- 1808 theology and he means it sincerely). When asked if by saying this he supports Feeneyism, he will back track.He will say ,he does not accept Feeneyism. In other words, there are exceptions to every one needing to enter the Church.This is the new theology.
We can see the same heresy and error for example, with Michael Voris. In a recent CMTV program he spoke about the Church being the one true Church.This is the only Church of God for him  and of course he means it. He is sincere. In his mind will be the pre- 1808 teachings of the Church. St. Thomas Aquinas. St.Augustine.
However he has also not denied that in a previous program on CMTV a few months back  he has said 'not every one needs to be ' a card carrying member' of the Church'. 
This is magisterial. It is Cushingism.It is a rejection of Feeneyism.
 It is also saying via theology that every one does not need to convert into the Church in the present times. It means this is not the one true Church of God for all.So again we have the same contradiction as that of the sedevacantists and traditionalists.The dual position.
They have accepted Cushingism, which is a new theology based on there being explicit exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. 
Michael Voris like IAAD, Bishop Bernard  Fellay, Michael Matt 1 and so many other Catholics, have accepted the irrational theology which has come into the Church. They are at par with Cardinal Kasper and Cardinal Koch and the political Left. They have a common irrational theology on salvation, other religions and ecumenism.They have endorsed the new theology based on irrationality and are unaware of it.Their position is ambiguous and complicated.
The sedevacantist IAAD thinks the fault is there with Vatican Council II for the dilution of the Faith when the fault is really his use of an irrational premise(cases in Heaven without the baptism of water are visible this year) and inference ( they are explicit exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church with faith and baptism)  in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. The fault is there with his choice of Cushingism which is magisterial - but  heretical.
-Lionel Andrades