Friday, September 30, 2016

There are hundreds of reports on line on this issue.When will someone tell Pope Benedict the truth?

    • Comments From Mundabor's blog : Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
  1. Mundabor;
    Here is the B16 {oops, sorry…Pope-Emeritus Benedict XVI Joseph Ratzinger LOL } interview:
    And an assessment in English for those of us that can’t read the original!
    Quote:
    “The missionaries of the 16th century were convinced that the unbaptized person is lost forever. After the [Second Vatican] Council, this conviction was definitely abandoned. The result was a two-sided, deep crisis. Without this attentiveness to the salvation, the Faith loses its foundation.”
    You’ll see in the interview there appears to be a sense of internal conflict in P-E BXVI. He frankly admits the obvious {the dogma has been dumped after V2} but isn’t really clear as to WHO he thinks dumped it; the CHURCH {She can’t} or the “culture” of the Church, or prelates, or faithful, or…who…B16 himself? But we all know that the essential teaching of the dogma has been ignored at best and completely rejected in practice for most Catholics, and I’d add Bishops, Cardinals and the Pope himself there as well if clarity of speech means anything anymore. Who knows? And if not “abandoned”, it has been redefined so as to be a meaningless dogma as if that were possible.
    • Ha, but it seems to me that he is saying (badly) the contrary: “if you ignore eternal truths, the faith loses its foundation”, or “when V II priests do no tbelieve what the Church has always believed, the Faith loses its foundation”.
      In my eyes, what he is saying is “your garden variety V II priest”, not “the Church” as sacred institution.
      However, the man himself was not better than that i his pontificate: he just ignored the hard points too often.
      M
    • ____________________________________
but isn’t really clear as to WHO he thinks dumped it; the CHURCH {She can’t} or the “culture” of the Church, or prelates, or faithful, or…who…B16 himself? 

Lionel: They still don't know ( Mundabor included) that the dogma was changed with an irrational premise which is the basis of the new theology. Set aside the new theology and we are back to the old ecclesiology. The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus will not have changed.
____________________________________

But we all know that the essential teaching of the dogma has been ignored at best and completely rejected in practice for most Catholics, and I’d add Bishops, Cardinals and the Pope himself there as well if clarity of speech means anything anymore. Who knows? And if not “abandoned”, it has been redefined so as to be a meaningless dogma as if that were possible.

Lionel:The dogma has been made meaningless since it is assumed that being saved in invincible ignorance and the catechumen who desired the baptism of water but died before receiving in, referred to personally known, cases, visible in our reality.It was also assumed that these cases were saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.Invisible cases were assumed to be visible persons who were exceptios to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So since allegedly there was known salvation outside the Church, every one did not have to be incorporated into the Church as a member for salvation. The dogma had been discarded. The excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney was maintained for some 19 plus years, right through Vatican Council II.
Vatican Councl II also mentions these invisible cases as if they are visible. This cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.This is an objective mistake in Vatican Council II.
_____________________________


Ha, but it seems to me that he is saying (badly) the contrary: “if you ignore eternal truths, the faith loses its foundation”, or “when V II priests do no tbelieve what the Church has always believed, the Faith loses its foundation”.

Lionel:There are a hundreds of reports on line on this issue.When will someone tell Pope Benedict the truth?

-Lionel Andrades



Catholic faith teaches : All Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Orthodox Christians and other non Catholics in 2016 are oriented to the fires of Hell unless they are incorporated into the Catholic Church as members, with 'faith and baptism'

All Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Orthodox Christians and other non Catholics in 2016 are oriented to the fires of Hell unless they are incorporated into the Catholic Church as members, with 'faith and baptism' (Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14), Cantate Domino Council of Florence 1441, Dominus Iesus 20, Nicene Creed, Athanasius Creed etc). So I affirm Vatican Council II with the old ecclesiology.
 
The difference between me and the First Signatories of the  'Declaration of fidelity to the Church's unchangable teaching on marriage'  is :-
1.All the signatoris would be rejecting the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Church 'which comes to us from the Apostles.'
2.All the signatories assume that the baptism of desire refers to visible cases and so is an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
3.The signatories suppose that we can see these hypothetical cases objectively on earth. So they are exceptions to the Church's constant magisterium.
-Lionel Andrades
 

September 29, 2016
What about a Declaration of fideltiy to the Church's unchangable teaching on salvation which has been changed and accepted by all the signatories of the Declaration of fidelity to the Church's unchangable teaching on marriage ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/what-about-declaration-of-fideltiy-to.html

So it cannot be said that I am a traditionalist who rejects Vatican Council II. Neither can it be said by the traditionalists that I reject EENS( Feeneyite)

Cannoli
Here I have affirmed the Catholic Faith according to Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS Feeneyite).You can place it on a Jewish or Muslim website or forum, as you suggested I do.

So for me EENS( Feeneyite) and Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) says all Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Orthodox Christians and other non Catholics are oriented to the fires of Hell unless they are incorporated into the Catholic Church as members, with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14).So I affirm Vatican Council II with the old ecclesiology.For me the new ecclesiology of Catholic Answers and the FSSP is heretical, irrational and an innovation in the Church. It causes the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.It can be avoided by Catholic Answers. A rational choice is there.
So it cannot be said that I am a traditionalist who rejects Vatican Council II. Neither can it be said by the traditionalists that I reject EENS( Feeneyite).

eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/at-catholic-ans…

I am a Catholic.I was baptised in the Catholic Church as an infant.All my life I have been a Catholic.Pope Francis is my pope though when he contradicts Tradition and previous popes, I reject what he says.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Thursday, September 29, 2016

What about a Declaration of fideltiy to the Church's unchangable teaching on salvation which has been changed and accepted by all the signatories of the Declaration of fidelity to the Church's unchangable teaching on marriage ?

What about a Declaration of fideltiy to the Church's unchangable teaching on salvation which has been changed and accepted by all the signatories of the Declaration of fidelity to the Church's unchangable teaching on marriage.
'Declaration of fidelity to the Church's unchangable teaching on marriage'  http://www.filialappeal.org/full

All the signatoris would be rejecting the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Church 'which comes to us from the Apostles.'
 
Until recently, the Catholic Church remained the stronghold of true marriage and family, but errors about these two divine institutions are widespread today in Catholic circles, particularly after the Extraordinary and Ordinary Synods on the family, held in 2014 and 2015, respectively, and the publication of the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. - See more at: http://www.filialappeal.org/full#sthash.U5Kyb3ax.dpuf
All the signatories assume that the baptism of desire refers to visible cases and so is an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). So every one does not need to be incorporated into the Church as a member is the new heretical doctrine.
Their 'conscience' tells them that every one does not need to be a card carrying member of the Catholic Church any more.Since there are known exceptions of people in Heaven or  on earth who have been saved outside the Church.They have gone to Heaven or are in Heaven without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14).
This has changed the Nicene Creed, but there are no objections to  from the signatories, to Catholics in this state of mortal sin, a first class heresy. They can receive the Eucharist.
For centuries the Church's constant magisterium did not teach that hypotyhetical cases like the baptism of desire could be personally known to humans. Now it is supposed that we can see these hypothetical cases  objectively on earth. So they are exceptions to the Church's constant magisterium. This is accepted by the signatories.-Lionel Andrades




First Signatories
  • Wolfgang Waldstein, Professor emeritus of the University of Salzburg, member of the Pontifical Academy for Life (Austria)
  • His Eminence Jãnis Cardinal Pujats, Archbishop emeritus of Riga (Latvia)
  • The Most Rev. Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of Astana (Kazakhstan)
  • Prof. Josef Seifert, Professor of Philosophy at the The International Association for the Study of the Philosophy of Edith Stein (IASPES), Founding Rector and Professor of the International Academy of Philosophy in the Principality of Liechtenstein (Austria)
  • Dr. Anca-Maria Cernea, President of the Ioan Barbus Foundation (Romania)
  • Dr. Vincent-Jean-Pierre Cernea (Romania)
  • Fr. Efrem Jindráček, Vice Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelicum (Rome-Italy)
  • His Eminence Carlo Cardinal Caffarra, Archbishop emeritus of Bologna, Founder and first president of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family (Italy)
  • His Eminence Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (Vatican)
  • Rev. Fr. Nicola Bux, Professor at the Theological Faculty of Puglia (Italy)
  • The Most Rev. Andreas Laun, Auxiliary Bishop of Salzburg (Austria)
  • The Most Rev. Juan Rodolfo Laise, Archbishop emeritus of San Luis (Argentina)
  • Rev. Fr. Antonius Maria Mamsery, Superior General of the Missionaries of the Holy Cross in Singida (Tanzania)
  • Rev. Fr. Giovanni M. Scalese, B., Ecclesiastical superior of the mission sui iuris in Afghanistan
  • Rev. Fr. José María Iraburu, Former Professor of Spiritual Theology at the School of Theology of Northern Spain; President of the Gratis Date Foundation and editor of the Site InfoCatólica (Spain)
  • The Rev. Msgr. Juan Claudio Sanahuja, Doctor in Theology, Professor of Moral Theology and the Sacraments, journalist (Argentina)
  • Prof. Dr. Alma von Stockhausen, Professor of Philosophy and Founder of the Gustav-Siewerth Academy in Weilheim-Bielbronnen (Germany)
  • Prof. Dr. Rudolf Hilfer, Faculty of Physics and Mathematics, Institute for Computational Physics at the University of Stuttgart (Germany)
  • Adolpho Lindenberg, Co-Founder of the Brazilian Society for the Defence of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) and President of the Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira Institute (Brazil)
  • John Smeaton, Chief Executive of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and co-founder of Voice of the Family (United Kingdom)
  • Prof. Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, Professor, economist and banker, Former President of IOR (Italy)
  • Prof. Dr. Massimo de Leonardis, Director of the Department of Political Sciences at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart - Milan (Italy)
  • Count Giorgio Piccolomini (Italy)
  • Countess Felicitas Piccolomini (Italy)
  • Prof. Tommaso Scandroglio, Professor of Ethics and Bioethics at the European University (Italy)
  • Prof. Giovanni Turco, Professor of Philosophy of Public Law at the University of Udine (Italy)
  • H.I.R.H. Prince Dom Luiz of Orleans-Braganza, Head of the Imperial House of Brazil
  • Prof. Isobel Camp, Professor of Philosophy at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelicum of Rome (United Kindgom)
  • H.H. Duke Paul of Oldenburg (Germany)
  • H.H. Duchess Pilar of Oldenburg (Germany)
  • Prince Carlo Massimo (Italy)
  • Princess Elisa Massimo (Italy)
  • Paolo Pasqualucci, Former Professor of the Philosophy of Law at the Faculty of Jurisprudence at the University of Perugia (Italy)
  • Prof. Corrado Gnerre, author and Professor of Religious Sciences (Italy)
  • H.I.R.H. Prince Dom Bertrand of Orleans-Braganza (Brazil)
  • Prof. John Laughland, author and Ph. D. Philosophy (United Kingdom)
  • Prof. Robert Lazu, author and Ph. D. Philosophy (Romania)
  • Prof. David Magalhães, Professor of the Faculty of Law at the University of Coimbra (Portugal)
  • Prof. Enrico Maria Radaelli, author, Research director for research for the Department of Metaphysics of Beauty and Philosophy of Arts (Italy)
  • Rev. Fr. Brian Harrison, Former Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico; Scholar-in-Residence, Oblates of Wisdom Study Center (USA)
  • Prof. Roberto de Mattei, Professor of Modern and Contemporary History at the European University of Rome (Italy)
  • Rev. Fr. Dr. Marc Hausmann, Doctor and Professor of Philosophy (Austria)
  • Rev. Fr. Alfredo Morselli, Theologian and author (Italy)
  • Ambassador Emilio Barbarani (Italy)
  • Ambassador Héctor Riesle Contreras, former Chilean ambassador to the Holy See (Chile)
  • Archduchess Alejandra of Habsburg (Mrs. Hector Riesle Contreras) (Austria, Chile)
  • Rev. Fr. Fernando Palacios, Doctor of Canon Law (Spain)
  • James Bogle, Barrister and former President of Una Voce International (United Kingdom)
  • John-Henry Westen, Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief LifeSiteNews.com (Canada)
  • Luis Fernando Pérez Bustamante, Director of InfoCatólica (Spain)
  • Maria Guarini, Director of the Site “Chiesa e Post Concilio” (Italy)
  • Dr. Caio Xavier da Silveira, Co-founder of the Brazilian Society for the Defence of Tradition, Family, and Property (TFP), President of the Fédération Pro Europa Christiana (France)
  • Prof. Gianandrea de Antonellis, President of the European Institute of Research, Studies and Formation (I.E.R.E.F.) (Italy)
  • Dr. Mauro Faverzani, Editor of “Radici Cristiane” (Italy)
  • Prof. Federico Catani, author and doctor in Religious Sciences (Italy)
  • Prof. Guido Vignelli, author and researcher on the family (Italy)
  • Maria Madise, Coordinator of Voice of the Family (Estonia)
  • Cristina Siccardi, writer and historian (Italy)
  • Mario Navarro da Costa, Director, Tradition, Family, Property Washington Bureau (USA)
  • Mathias von Gersdorff, writer and lecturer (Germany)
  • Marchioness Gabriella Spalletti Trivelli Coda Nunziante (Italy)
  • Virginia Coda Nunziante, President of Famiglia Domani (Italy)
  • Prof. Raúl del Toro, Professor of organ and organist (Spain)
  • Prof. María Arratíbel , Professor of music (Spain)
  • Daniel Iglesias Grèzes, Secretary of the Catholic Cultural Centre “Fe y Razón” (Uruguay)
  • Pedro Luis Llera Vázquez, Catholic School Director (Spain)
  • David González Cea (signs as Alonso Gracián), Thomist philosopher and writer (Spain)
  • José Miguel Arráiz, Catechist and founder of ApologeticaCatolica.org (Venezuela)
  • Antonello Brandi, President Pro Vita Onlus (Italy)
  • Suzanne Pearson, Delegate, Emperor Karl League of Prayer (USA)
  • Paul N. King, President and Founder, The Paulus Institute for the Propagation of Sacred Liturgy (USA)
  • Donna Fitzpatrick Bethell, Chairman of the Board of Christendom College, former Under Secretary, US Department of Energy (USA)
  • Alessandra Nucci, Writer and Director of the magazine Una Voce Grida (Italy)
  • Prof. Néstor Martínez, Licentiate in Philosophy, Professor and writer. Co-Founder of “Fe y Razón” (Uruguay)
  • Prof. Javier Paredes, Professor of Contemporary History at the University of Alcalà (Spain)
  • The Honourable Justin Shaw (United Kingdom)
  • Mrs. Caroline Shaw (United Kingdom)
  • Bruno Moreno, Licentiate in Physics and Ecclesiastical Studies, writer and editor of Vita Brevis (Spain)
  • Juan José Romero, Editor and Consultant for Communications (Spain)
  • Dr. Alberto Zelger, President of the Centro Culturale Nicolò Stenone (Italy)
  • Gianfranco Amato, President of Lawyers for Life, National Secretary of Popolo della Famiglia (Italy)
- See more at: http://www.filialappeal.org/seemore#sthash.BWlVDY6H.dpuf


 
 

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

We have a new salvation theology and this is not mentioned by the writers of the Liber of Accusations

The Remnant and Catholic Family News published a Liber of Accusation against Pope Francis however they do not mention the heresy  being taught by Catholic organisations with the approval of the two popes.
Here we have Catholic Answers not aware of what is the exact cause of the hermeneutic of continuity. Tim Staples vaguely talks about a dogmatic and pastoral approach.

Pope Framcis like Catholic Answers and EWTN uses a theology, which violates the Principle of Non Contradiction and still after years there is no statement from the writers of the Liber about this.

It is said that there can be no change in the teachings of the Church on faith and morals and yet the teachings on faith have been changed. There are new doctrines on salvation based on the new irrational theology. There is a new ecclesiology of the Church based on the new Cushingite theology.
Trent Horn a Catholic apologist rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since he assumes there are known exceptions and this is the norm also for Pope Francis and the Jesuits.

How can we violate the Principle of Non Contradiction with theology and create new doctrines and a new faith?We have a new salvation theology and this is not mentioned by the writers of the Liber of Accusations.-Lionel Andrades

Heresy is caused by directly not accepting a teaching of the Church which it is necessary to accept. However heresy is also caused if you mix up what is defacto as being dejure ( in principle), is you confuse what is hypothetical as being objective
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/heresy-is-caused-by-directly-not.html


With this new theology the Principle of Non Contradiction has been violated. There are two teachings in the Church. One is orthodox and the other ambigous. One is rational and the other is irrational
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/with-this-new-theology-principle-of-non.html


At Catholic Answers Tim Staples and Patrick Coffin do not realize that the issue is faith.The discipline comes later.First there is a change in doctrine and then this is reflected in the new pastoral practise, the change in discipline. It is not vice versa.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/at-catholic-answers-tim-staples-and.html


Trent Horn, apologist at Catholic Answers indicates that his understanding of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is Cushingite and not Feeneyite
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/trent-horn-apologist-at-catholic.html


No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church? -Catholic Answers video : common mistake
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/no-salvation-outside-catholic-church.html



Is Salvation Possible for Non-Catholics? : Trent Horn at Catholic Answers assumes Lumen Gentium 16 is not a hypothetical case but refers to someone personally known
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/is-salvation-possible-for-non-catholics.html


Is Catholic teaching on salvation too complicated? : Catholic Answers violates the Principle of Non Contradiction
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/is-catholic-teaching-on-salvation-too.html

Heresy is caused by directly not accepting a teaching of the Church which it is necessary to accept. However heresy is also caused if you mix up what is defacto as being dejure ( in principle), is you confuse what is hypothetical as being objective.



(1:04:16) Tim Staples begins to explain the hermenutic of continuity as being one of approach, a dogmatic or pastoral approach.
However if you interpret the baptism of desire as being visible or invisible, as known defacto or hypothetical, changes the heremeneutic of continuity. We have the hermeutic of rupture.
Heresy is caused by directly not accepting a teaching of the Church which it is necessary to accept. However heresy is also caused if you mix up what is defacto as being dejure ( in principle), is you confuse what is hypothetical as being objective.
So the baptism of desire becomes a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so there is a change in a dogma of the Catholic Church.
So the Council with LG 16 (visible) creates a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
For me the LG 16 is invisible  and so there is a continuity with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades

With this new theology the Principle of Non Contradiction has been violated. There are two teachings in the Church. One is orthodox and the other ambigous. One is rational and the other is irrational.

The infallible teaching of the Church referred to in Vatican Council II contradicts Catholic Answers. The Church infallibly taught in in three Church Councils that the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus meant all need to be incorporated into the Church as members.This was de fide.I call this extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyism). 
This is rejected by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and also Catholic Answers. We now have a new doctrine. It is extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Cushingite- all need to enter the Church except for some who do not need to enter the Church).
So there is a change in faith.
With this new theology the Principle of Non Contradiction has been violated. There are two teachings in the Church. One is orthodox and the other ambigous. One is rational and the other is irrational.
For instance, I affirm EENS ( Feeneyite - no known exceptions to EENS) and for Catholic Answers it is EENS ( Cushingite- there are known exceptions to EENS Feeneyite).
I affirm Vatican Council II (Feeneyite-LG 16 are not visible but invisible cases) and for Catholic Answers ( LG 16 etc refer to invisible cases and so LG 16 is an exception to EENS Feeneyite).
I affirm the Nicene Creed ( there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, one known baptism). Catholic Answers changes the Nicene Creed to ( I beleive in three or more known baptisms, and they include the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible all without the baptism of water.There are exceptions). For me this is a first class heresy in the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II.
Similarly I interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church with Feeneyism while Catholic Answers does it with irrational and innovative Cushingism.It is magisterial in the present times.The present 'Church' has approved this heresy which is a break with the pre-Council of Trent magisterium. It was done with a new theology.The present Church( with the Baltimore Catechism) has changed the teachings of the past Church ( before the Council of Trent). The change was made with a theology based on an objective error.
So the SSPX and the sedevacantists who affirm the traditional teachings of the Church reject the innovation which has been accepted by Catholic Answers and the present magisterium. These are decisions of "the Church", " our mother".The SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 affirmed the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS. The CDF/Ecclesia Dei refuses to  accept this teaching on faith.Teaching on faith and morals? A de fide teaching has been changed.
Central to this problem is still extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the injustice done to Fr.Leonard Feeney. 

-Lionel Andrades

At Catholic Answers Tim Staples and Patrick Coffin do not realize that the issue is faith.The discipline comes later.First there is a change in doctrine and then this is reflected in the new pastoral practise, the change in discipline. It is not vice versa.

Catholic Answers Live: "Radical Traditionalism"
https://youtu.be/Q4J8rOjgyuY

At  Catholic Answers  Tim Staples and Patrick Coffin do  not realize that the issue is faith.The discipline comes later.First there is a change in doctrine and then this is reflected in the new pastoral practise, the change in discipline. It is not vice versa.The cause of the problem is not just disciplinary.
The Priestly Fraternity of St.Peter affirm the faith interpreted with a non traditional theology and so the conclusion is non traditional.Catholic Answers does the same.They accept this conclusion with the new doctrines.
The Society of St. Pius X also affirms the faith interpreted with a non traditional theology and so the conclusion is non traditional.However they do not accept the conclusion and the new doctrines.So they cling to the Traditional Latin Mass which affirmed the old ecclesiology and they cite the saints who did not use the new theology to create new doctrines.
The sedevacantists do the same.
Let me be concrete.
The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as  Cushingites.They assume there are known exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.So they offer the Traditional Latin Mass rejecting the dogma EENS as it was interpreted by the 16th century missionaries.
Similarly they interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism. LG 16 refers to known exceptions to the dogma EENS. So Vatican Council II for them is a rupture with EENS ( Feeneyite), the Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition.
So the traditional Catholic faith-teaching has been changed. They have changed salvation theology with a new subjectivism. They assume we can see people saved with the baptism of desire, for example, in Heaven or on earth, without the baptism of water, and they ( unknown persons)  are exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
They are simply following the New Theology which is magisterial, even though it is irrational, an innovation and heretical. It contradicts the Principle of Non Contradiction( how can we see or know a baptism of desire case?).
So like I said earlier at Catholic Answers Tim Staples and Patrick Coffin do not realize that the issue is faith.The discipline comes later.First there is a change in doctrine and then this is reflected  in pastoral practise. It is not vice versa.
As a Catholic who attends the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass my theology is Feeneyite. So Vatican Council II is not a break with the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).SInce I affirm EENS( Feeneyite) I am affirming the traditional ecclesiology of the Church.I am doing this without rejecting Vatican Council II and the dogma EENS.
So for me EENS( Feeneyite) and Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) says all Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Orthodox Christians and other non Catholics are oriented to the fires of Hell unless they are incorporated into the Catholic Church as members, with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14).So I affirm Vatican Council II with the old ecclesiology.For me the new ecclesiology of  Catholic Answers and the FSSP is heretical, irrational and an innovation in the Church. It causes the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.It can be avoided by Catholic Answers. A rational choice is there.
So it cannot be said that I am a radical traditionalist who rejects Vatican Council II. Neither can it be said by the traditionalists that I reject EENS( Feeneyite).

-Lionel Andrades

Trent Horn, apologist at Catholic Answers indicates that his understanding of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is Cushingite and not Feeneyite.

Video No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church? (Catholic Answers)
 
Trent Horn in this video indicates that his understanding of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is Cushingite and not Feeneyite.Like the Protestant caller he would have a problem with the Feeneyite interpretation of  EENS.
The Feeneyite interpretation of EENS according to me, says there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS. While the Cushingite interpretation of EENS says there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS.
Since Trent Horn holds the Cushingite interpretation of the dogma EENS he interprets being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire with two conditions. 1)They exclude the baptism of water and 2) they are physically visible, that is personally known in the present times.
So he quotes passages from the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a Cushingite. He cites the references to being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.Then he assumes they refer to cases without the baptism of water and are personally known in the present times. So these passages, for him, would contradict the Feeneyite intepretation of the dogma EENS.They would have to be visible and known to contradict the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.
I  would accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church passages on being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire or blood. I would however assume that they are a reference to being saved 1) with also the baptism of water in a manner known only to God and 2) it is an invisible case.
That it is an invisible case is the important point. Since even if there was a baptism of case, with or without, the baptism of water, it would still be invisible. So it would not be relevant or an exception to the Feeneyite intepretation of the dogma EENS as it is presntly for Trent Horn and the apologists at Catholic Answers.
So I would affirm the dogma EENS, as it was interpreted over the centuries, and then say that the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846, quoted by Trent, is not an exception to it.Since it refers to a hypothetical and invisible case. A  possibility is not a defacto case in 2016, for example. It is not an exception to the interpreation of the dogma EENS according to the Church Fathers.
In CCC 846 cardinals Ratzinger and Schonborn were trying to accomodate the New Theology which makes allowances for invisible cases being visible. This violates the Principles of Non Contradiction.Yet this is the acceptable theology at Catholic Answers.They have a choice. They could interpret CCC 826 and CCC 1257 with Feeneyism.Hypothetical cases could just be accepted as being hypothetical. The wrong inference must not be made here by them.
-Lionel Andrades

One Soul’s Escape From Satanism to Catholicism

One Soul’s Escape From Satanism to Catholicism


In 2011, at an Easter Vigil in a simple parish church in New York State, a number of souls were received into the Catholic Church. As it does every year, the ceremony moved from the darkness surrounding the Paschal Fire through the many readings from the Old and New Testament to the proclamation of the triumph of the Resurrection – reminding all present that the long reign of Sin and Death has finally ended. On that night, those adults becoming Catholics made their baptismal promises. They accepted the Truths of the Faith. They rejected Satan and all his works and all his empty promises.
It is right and fitting that they did so, but for one among them it had an even greater significance than for the others present that night. Previously, he had been part of a witch’s coven. For many years, he had practiced its blasphemous rites, and seen things that he maintains could only have come from Hell as that is whence he had summoned them.
Of course, Fred Wolff had not always been a Satanist. In fact, he was born, in 1956, into a New York Jewish family. His family was not overtly religious. Nevertheless, the boy attended the local synagogue and Hebrew School, and then duly made his Bar Mitzvah. He left the practise of his faith when aged 16-year-old. A year later he had his first introduction to the Occult.
A friend brought him to meet his cousin. This cousin happened to run an Occult bookshop in Wolff’s hometown. There, the youth met men who were witches; soon he was happily being inducted into Wicca. Wicca pretends to be magic of the sort that harms no one. Looking back, Wolff sees it was harming him, and more worryingly opening the channel to another deeper, more dangerous, encounter with evil.
On one level, Wolff’s life appeared normal. In 1977, he joined the Air Force and was duly posted to different parts of the country. On another level, his life was anything but normal. In these different postings with the military, he would be connected to Occult groups that were present wherever he was stationed. In his own words, such covens are ‘widespread’ – true then, no doubt, even more so today.
One encounter proved too much, though, and showed where this was ultimately leading. Wolff was posted to California. A man approached him. As he did so, he noticed that the man carried a leather case with a Pentagram upon it. This symbol of devil worship proved to be portentous, for the man was a Satanist. He invited Wolff to his first Black Mass.
It took place in San Francisco and left the airman traumatised. He had never experienced anything like it before, despite the many Wicca ceremonies in which he had taken part. What he does remember of that ‘mass’ was that the chief ‘celebrant’ of its blasphemy was a defrocked Catholic priest.
Here is not the place to recount the vile things witnessed that night as the Holy Mass was perverted into a sacrilege. What Wolff remembers clearly is that he was aghast while attending it. But, no matter how frightened he felt of what was taking place before his eyes, there seemed to be another power, albeit an invisible one, holding him there, preventing his leaving.
After his discharge from the air force, in 1981, Wolff returned to civilian life. He also returned to the practise of his pagan ways. Soon he was the High Priest, so called, of his local coven on Long Island. And, so it remained, and would have done so, had not a figure from his past reappeared in the winter of 1982. That person was one of the people whom he had met at the Occult bookshop all those years previously, and who, subsequently, had introduced him to Wicca. He came with a curious request.
The man was convinced that he had found the ritual and invocations to conjure up a demon. He asked if Wolff wanted to participate in what he was about to attempt. More out of curiosity than anything, Wolff agreed; however, what was about to take place was to change both men’s lives.
A so-called ‘circle of protection’ was marked upon the floor. His friend told him that as long as they stayed within the circle’s confines they would be ‘safe’. The chanting of the long incantations began. Little did either of them know of the power of evil and that Satan and his demons have one goal: to destroy all those with whom they come into contact, ‘friend’ or foe. And yet, the ritual continued.
As it did so, from the corner of the darkened room, a figure began to appear. As it came into the light, Wolff remembers it was the most beautiful woman he had ever seen, with a beauty that was captivating. She beckoned to him to leave the circle. Somehow, motivated by fear more than anything else, he managed not to move. It was just as well for within seconds the figure had changed from beautiful to that of a hideous shape. In fact, he was later to say that it was the most horrible thing he had ever set eyes on. But, by then, he says, the ‘real show’ had just begun.
The very walls around the two men appeared to melt. And with that, came the most suffocating and awful smell – a sulphuric smell. Today, Wolff realises that he was being given his very own glimpse of Hell. Now, he says that when he hears of people who say that Hell doesn’t exist, he knows they are wrong – he has seen it, smelt it even.
And, with the coming of Hell, so too arrived one of its occupants as the summoned demon now made an entry.
The reaction on seeing this shape was one of fear, a paralysing fear. The demon looked straight at the two men and then laughed at them, asking if they thought the circle would really keep them safe? Before any answer was uttered, Wolff’s companion was lifted from the floor and thrown against an adjacent wall approximately 15 feet away. At this, Wolff could take no more and fled horror-struck through the house before locking himself in a room.
How long he hid there, he still has no idea. What he does know, in retrospect, is that if the Hand of the Almighty had not sheltered him that night he is convinced that he would now be dead. Of this, he is certain.
His companion did not fare so well, however. When Wolff emerged and returned to the room where the ritual had taken place, he found him lying on the floor, foaming at the mouth. A police and ambulance were soon in attendance. The police did not believe Wolff’s story that he had just ‘happened by’ and found his friend in this state; but there was no overt evidence of violence or drug use and so the police let it go. Eventually, his friend was taken to a psychiatric institution on Long Island. He was to die there from self-inflicted wounds some years later.
Wolff had now seen too much. He wanted out. At last, he sensed the danger he was in. The next day, he told the other members of the coven of this desire to leave. They started to threaten him: no one was going anywhere; somehow, he managed to get away from them and ran to his car parked outside. But try as he might, the car wouldn’t start. And as he was sitting there, turning the ignition, suddenly, out of the building from which he had just fled, there appeared two witches. In the rear-view mirror, he could see that they had spotted his car. He watched as they seemed to cast a spell at Wolff and his vehicle. The next moment all he remembers was that the windows of his car blew out.
It was then the car started, and, seconds later, a dazed Wolff sped off into the night …
The following day when he went to get the glass repaired, the men doing so commended him for doing a ‘good job’. He did not understand what they meant. So they explained that obviously he had cleaned the inside of the car from all the broken glass. The only thing was, he hadn’t. To this day, Wolff is sure that something, or someone, had protected him from the force of the blast so as the shattering glass had been deflected away from him. He thinks this could only have occurred through the protection of his guardian angel.
At Wolff’s then work place, there was a Christian who had often tried to speak to him about Christianity. Wolff had never been interested. Now, when he met the man, he begged him to take him to church. Days later, at a Baptist church, watched by his surprised work colleague, Wolff accepted Our Lord as his Saviour. As he was to say later, after the night of that infernal ritual, he knew he needed a saviour; and, perhaps more importantly, he knew from what he was being saved.
The years that followed were far from easy. He got married, but the marriage broke down; he suffered from depression. His church attendance was sporadic. He had no firm adherence to any of the many Protestant groups he attended. There was a constant theme running through these groups though. It was a fear of Catholicism, often dressed up in arguments against or negative comments about the Church. Paradoxically, these polemics had the opposite effect on Wolff. He began to read books by authors such as Scott Hahn, Patrick Madrid and other Catholic apologists. The more he read, the more a shape formed in his consciousness, but one wholly unlike the hideous figure of that dreadful night many years ago. This was an altogether different one, and one whose beauty was true, for it was the Bride of Christ, His Church.
Now, at last, at that Easter Vigil in 2011, in a church dedicated to her who crushes the head of the serpent, Wolff attended a Holy Mass instead of the counterfeit he had witnessed in the past, and, having confessed all, received his Saviour in Holy Communion, and, with it, the peace and joy that casts out all fear.
K. V. Turley

By

K. V. Turley is a London based freelance writer and filmmaker with a degree in theology from the Maryvale Institute.
 
http://catholicexchange.com/one-souls-escape-satanism-catholicism
 

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church? -Catholic Answers video : common mistake

https://youtu.be/apltTtp6Pfs



I mentioned in a previous post that 'The Remnant and Catholic Family News published a letter and a Liber of Accusation against Pope Francis entitled, “With Burning Concern: We Accuse Pope Francis” and have seen the subjectivism in Amoris Laetitia  but not the subjectivism in their interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and Vatican Council II.
Nor have they seen the subjectivity  of the two popes in salvation theology.
Presently every priest has to accept this subjectivism in salvation theology to be incardinated ; to be accepted by the Vatican. This point was omitted in the Liber.
Even the Traditional Latin Mass today is modernist,Pope Francis only permits this Mass, with  subjectivism in salvation theology.The old ecclesiology is omitted.
It is obligatory for all Catholics to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) without the baptism of water, as being not subjective but objective, seen in the flesh in 2016.'

This is the mistake also made by Catholic Answers in the video above.It is assumed that the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) refers to some explicit case in the present times (2016).So Catholic Answers cannot say every one with no exception; no known exception, needs to be incorporated into the Church as a member.
Since there are no practical exceptions.
There cannot be practical exceptions to the centuries-old interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
In the previous post I mentioned :- 
'This subjectivism which is the foundation of the Rahner-Ratzinger New Theology is being taught this semester at all Catholic universities and seminaries. Even Fr. Matthias Gaudron, of the SSPX in Germany, who was critical of the subjectivism in Amoris Laetitia, does not oppose this subjectivism in the interpretation of the new salvation theology.
The irrationality is  taught by Fr. Jean Marie Gleize at the SSPX seminary in Econe,Switzerland.It is the same at other SSPX seminaries.Yet Chris Ferrara often says that the SSPX is not teaching anything new.The SSPX is allegedly not saying anything new?!
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre approved this error and did not know it was responsible for the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition in Vatican Council II.
Without this subjectivism in the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology Vatican Council II can be interpreted as not being a break with Quanta Cura.The Council is not a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors.The Council is Feeneyite ( theology which says there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus) and traditional.'

Even Catholic Answers is not aware that without this subjectivism, the Catechism of the Catholic Church can be interpreted in harmony with 'the rigorist interpretation' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The blog post stated :
'So the Liber does not tell Pope Francis that Vatican Council II can  be interpreted without his wrongly assuming we can subjectively discern a BOD case in 2016.
'It does not say that we can re- nterpret LG 16, LG 8, etc  as not by being explicit and personally known, since they can only be personally known to God and not to us humans.
Vatican Council II will then be in harmony with the  dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the 16th century missionaries  and not according  to Pope Benedict XVI.Since there are no 'practical exceptions', (a phrase used by Chris Ferrara) with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

For Catholic Answers the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation is in harmony with Pope Benedict and Pope Francis since there are alleged exceptions. It is a rupture with the 16th century missionaries who did not claim there are exceptions.Catholic Answers could not tell the Protestant that he was on the way to Hell.Since for Catholic Answers there are known exceptions. Without the subjectivism error, of Catholic Answers, the Protestant who called in could have been directly told that he was on the way to Hell, unless he formally converted into the Catholic Church.
The blog post states:
'Ferrara is saying that there are no 'practical exceptions' to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS. However he is still not saying that there are no practical exceptions  in Vatican Council II to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.The Liber does not mention this.This is a very important point which he left out.'
The Liber also does not mention that Catholic Answers and so many Catholic organisations and apologists are confused on this issue. Explaining salvation in the Catholic Church has become complicated because of the political priorities which hide the truth.
The post stated:
It may be said that the issue of Fr.Leonard Feeney is of the past, an injustice was done to him for being faithful to the teachings of the Church.However the Liber does not say that the Fr. Leonard Feeney case determines how Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II today.He assumes there are practical exceptions in Vatican Council II to the dogma EENS as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney.So theologically he de-rails Vatican Council II with the past, with the popes and saints on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
For me there are no practical exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II.
So the two popes are wrong and so are the SSPX bishops.'

Even Catholic Answers is wrong. 
 SSPX CANONICAL REQUIREMENT
This is an important issue since the canonical requirement for the SSPX is that they accept Vatican Council II with 'practical exceptions'.They need to point out this error to the Vatican.Vatican Council II can be acceopted also as having not practical exceptions to the old ecclesiology. There are no practical exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II(Feeneyite). The ecclesiology is traditional without the Rahner-Ratzinger theology.
They need to point out the error to Catholic Answers.
FRANCISCANS OF THE IMMACULATE
The regularisation of the Franciscans of the Immaculate also depends on their accepting the Rahner-Ratzinger new doctrines on salvation,based on 'practical exceptions' to EENS.Pope Francis   was not asked to correct his error.
They are also using the Rahner-Ratzinger New Theology as is Catholic Answers above.
SEDEVACANTISTS
Vatican Council II with this error, is the reason for the sedevacantists ( MHFM etc) being sedevacantists during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II.They do not know that the baptism of desire refers to imaginary cases and so never were relevant to EENS.This is a mistake of the Vatican Curia too.It was important for the liber to have clarified this point.The problem again is subjectivism in salvation theology.
Catholics Answers criticizes the sedevacantists and Radical Traditionalists but all of them use the new theology based on irrational subjectivism.
-Lionel Andrades