Friday, June 10, 2016

Here are the controversial passages again

Here is the report again.The parts in red are hypothetical references. So they cannot be exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Church, with faith and baptism, in 2016.Boniface and the traditionalists will not admit it.They make the same mistake.

Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made an objective mistake : hypothetical cases are assumed to be explicit

CARDINAL GERHARD MULLER
Related image

That has been discussed, but here, too, there has been a development of all that was said in the Church, beginning with St. Cyprian, one of the Fathers of the Church, in the third century. Again, the perspective is different between then and now. In the third century, some Christian groups wanted to be outside the Church, and what St. Cyprian said is that without the Church a Christian cannot be savedThe Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “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.” He who is aware of the presence of Revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly — and not only in his conscience, in his heart — to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him.
But we cannot say that those who are inculpably ignorant of this truth are necessarily condemned for that reason. We must hope that those who do not belong to the Church through no fault of their own, but who follow the dictates of their God-given conscience, will be saved by Jesus Christ whom they do not yet know. Every person has the right to act according to his or her own conscience. - Cardinal Gerhard Muller (10/02/2012 ). Archbishop Gerhard Müller: 'The Church Is Not a Fortress', National Catholic Register  http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-mueller-the-church-is-not-a-fortress/#ixzz3pwkg3Mur



I don’t know if you can blame this on the Council so much as the emergence of a theological trend that emphasized the possibility of salvation of non-Christians. But the Church has always affirmed this, and it has never denied it. …The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted. I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints.' - Archbishop Augustine di Noia ( 07/01/2012 ), Archbishop Di Noia, Ecclesia Dei and the Society of St. Pius X, National Catholic Register.


http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-dinoia-ecclesia-dei-and-the-society-of-st.-pius-x/#ixzz3Q1Vx3byR


___________________________

 

LAB_82 
The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)
Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church, which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949". -Bishop Bernard Fellay  (April 13, 2014 ) Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82
http://www.dici.org/en/documents/letter-to-friends-and-benefactors-no-82/
-Lionel Andrades


JUNE 7, 2016

Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made an objective mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/muller-di-noia-and-fellay-made.html

 JUNE 8, 2016
Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made an objective mistake : hypothetical cases are assumed to be explicit http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/muller-di-noia-and-fellay-made_8.html

 JUNE 8, 2016
Muller, Di Noia and Fellay contradict the extra ordinary (ex cathedra) and ordinary magisterium http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/muller-di-noia-and-fellay-contradict.html

JUNE 8, 2016
Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made an objective error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and traditionalists are in a fix. They cannot correct me and neither do they want to say that they were wrong all these years and have been interpreting Vatican Council II with an irrational reasoning
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/muller-di-noia-and-fellay-made_36.html

JUNE 8, 2016
We see this conditioning in the irrational reasoning of Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Archbishop Augistine Di Noia and Bishop Bernard Fellay :it was accepted by Lefebvre,Hildebrand,Davis and Mattei
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/we-see-this-conditioning-in-irrational.html

JUNE 9, 2016
Is it not a first class heresy for Archbishop Di Noia to reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus defined by three Church Councils and that too with an irrationality? Is this not heresy for you? Is this not the stuff for excommunication?http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/is-it-not-first-class-heresy-for.html


Unam Sanctam Catholicam

JUNE 9, 2016
Bishop Fellay made a mistake and Boniface on the blog Unam Sanctam Catholicam has nothing to say in his defense:agrees Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Augustine di Noia also made an objective error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/bishop-fellay-made-mistake-and-boniface.html

JUNE 10, 2016
The issue is how does Boniface interpret Vatican Council II-with Cushingism or Feeneyism http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/the-issue-is-how-does-boniface.html

JUNE 10, 2016
Boniface does not say that Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made a mistake, like he does in philosophy ( irrational premise and reasoning) and theology ( new theology based on the irrational premise and conclusion)
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/instead-of-saying-muller-di-noia-and.html

_________________________________________

Boniface does not say that Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made a mistake, like he does in philosophy ( irrational premise and reasoning) and theology ( new theology based on the irrational premise and conclusion)

Unam Sanctam Catholicam
Every blog has their trolls. I've never done this before, but I had to call mine out.


unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com|Di Boniface

Commenti
Classic Catholic haha! So stupid! Why has he not gotten the hint already? haha!
Rimuovi
Kevin Dolan
Kevin Dolan What I can't believe is just how many years it's gone on for. Clearly some people have no lives whatsoever.
Rimuovi
Andrew McGovern
Andrew McGovern So he will spam this one too I guess.
_________________________________

Lionel:
This was the original report, which I sent Boniface.He still has not disagreed with me theologically or doctrinally. He does not comment. So I could assume he agrees with me.

  • Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made an objective mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/muller-di-noia-and-fellay-made.html

He will not comment though.He will not say that Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Archbishop Augustine di Noia and Bishop Bernard Fellay made a factual mistake. They mistook hypothetical cases as being objectively known. They then assumed that these cases were explicit exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church to avoid Hell.

This is subjectivism. It is with subjectivism that the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) has been done away with officially. The contemporary magisterìum has been so successful that they used this ruse in Pope Francis'  exhortation Amoris Laetitia, with reference to moral theology.

So Boniface attends the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, with subjectivism in salvation theology.

If Boniface does consider Muller, Di Noia and Fellay assumed hypothetical cases are objective exceptions to EENS and if he affirms this in public, then he would have to change his position on the Hermeneutic of Continuity.1.

If he would say that Muller, Di Noia and Fellay assumed theoretical cases were relevant to EENS as an exception, then he would be saying that Mons.Clifford Fenton also made the same mistake.SInce he accepted the baptism of desire as relevant to EENS.2. 

If he could see that these three respected religious leaders are making the same error as the popes then he would be able to say that the popes from Pope Pius XII to Pope Francis have made an objective mistake.For him Pope Francis has said other things which are not acceptable.3

So to really comment on my blog post, philosophically and theologically,would  mean having to change his position on the baptism of desire, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Vatican Council II, Social Reign of Christ the King...He would have to admit that his  philosophical reasoning was in error like that of Muller, Di Noia and Fellay.

In his address on Pentecost ( See Video below from Unam Sanctam Catholicam, Facebook) he affirms in general, the necessity for all to enter the Church.However in the same video theologically he contradicts himself.Since he considers being saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire etc, as being relevant to the dogma EENS. This was the mistake made by the apologists Mngr.Fenton. Fr.William Most and Fr.John Hardon.

It is like Michael Voris on a Vortex program saying that Church is necessary for salvation( and he believes this sincerely) but every one does not need to be a card carrying member of the Church. He meant theologically a person could be saved with the baptism of desire etc, since they are explicit exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.
Similarly Christine Niles when hosting a good  Mic'd Up program on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus affirmed the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.She did not speak about the the objective error in the second part of the Letter.She was interpreting EENS like Muller,Di Noia and Fellay.

I have been pointing this out to Boniface for years.The only way I can do it is through comments on his blog, hoping he will begin to discuss this issue.
Now instead of saying Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made a mistake, like he does in philosophy ( irrational premise and reasoning) and theology ( new theology based on the irrational premise and conclusion), he considers me a nuisance.-Lionel Andrades


1
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.it/2013/09/what-is-hermeneutic-of-continuity.html


2.
Steve Cunningham https://youtu.be/qA7kWuErFgo




3.
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.it/2016/04/i-give-up.html


Unam Sanctam Catholicam When he says something seriously definitive, I will pay attention. But I am not going to hang on every word that he spews, either for good or for ill. Not everything the pope says is the papal magisterium, so as far as I'm concerned, I'm turning him off until he says something I need to pay attention to.

__________________________

The issue is how does Boniface interpret Vatican Council II-with Cushingism or Feeneyism  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/the-issue-is-how-does-boniface.html  



Unam Sanctam Catholicam

Bishop Fellay made a mistake and Boniface on the blog Unam Sanctam Catholicam has nothing to say in his defense:agrees Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Augustine di Noia also made an objective error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/bishop-fellay-made-mistake-and-boniface.html

The issue is how does Boniface interpret Vatican Council II-with Cushingism or Feeneyism

Boniface(Blog Unam Sanctam Catholicam) may say that he follows the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and so rejects Feeneyism, true, but then the issue is how does he interpret Vatican Council II.I too accept the Letter but not in the way he does.
I accept the first part of the Letter which is traditional and so indicates that there are no exceptions  to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).This is Feeneyism for me.
I cannot accept the second part of the Letter,which contradicts the first part and indicates the baptism of desire etc is explicit and objectively known in the present times, for it to be an exception to the traditional interpretation of EENS.This is nonsense.Since there are no known cases of the baptism of desire.This is Cushingism for me.
For me Feeneyism means there are no known exceptions to EENS while Cushingism says there are known exceptions.The baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, all without the baptism of water, is an exception.
Feeneyism says hypothetical cases cannot be practical exceptions to EENS.Cushingism says they can and they are.
So the real issue is how does Boniface interpret Vatican Council II, is it with Feeneyism or Cushingism? One of these two approaches for me is irrational, non traditional and heretical.There are other implications.Since he supports Cushinghism it means not every one needs to enter the Catholic Church in the present times.So the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King, over all political legislation, is obsolete. There are exceptions.
It also means that a non Catholic can be saved in his or her religion, so Fr. Karl Rahner S.J's was correct with his Anonymous Christian theory,for Boniface, his bishop and the present magisterium.

It means Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was correct with his new theology in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which says all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church.He implies that there can be an 'Anonymous Christian' and all need not formally enter the Church for salvation.
This is the liberal new theology, the new ecclesiology which Boniface and his bishop supports, while externally offering the Latin or Novus Ordo Mass.
I attend Mass and affirm Vatican Council with Feeneyism.So there is no Anonymous Christian for me, and all need to formally enter the Church with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14).The Church is the new people of God (NA 4), Catholics are the new Chosen People, they are the Elect.
Vatican Council II is Feeneyite for me.I affirm Vatican Council II and also implicit-for-us baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance. I reject Vatican Council II (Cushingite) which Boniface accepts.I also reject explicit-for-us baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance( with or without the baptism of water).It is invisible for me and not part of the human reality.
So for me the baptism of desire does not contradict EENS.Implicit for us baptism of desire does not contradict all externally needing to be a formal member of the Church. It is not contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.
For me LG 14( implicit for us) is not an exception to EENS.For Boniface, LG 14 ( explicit for us) is an explicit exception to EENS.So Vatican Council II contradicts EENS for Boniface.It does not do so for me since LG 14 etc refers to a hypothetical case.
All this will be difficult for the traditionalists who sincerely want to understand me.Since I am approaching this issue with a different premise and conclusion.I avoid  their premise ( visible hypothetical cases)  and conclusion ( practical exceptions to EENS and the Syllabus of Errors), to return to the old ecclesiology, with the rational premise(no physically visible hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire etc) and conclusion (there are no known exceptions to EENS and the traditional ecclesiology based on EENS).
The innovation was enforced in the Church, with the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.It went un-noticed even for Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
-Lionel Andrades

Unam Sanctam Catholicam
Bishop Fellay made a mistake and Boniface on the blog Unam Sanctam Catholicam has nothing to say in his defense:agrees Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Augustine di Noia also made an objective error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/bishop-fellay-made-mistake-and-boniface.html

 
Related image
LAB_82
Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made an objective error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and traditionalists are in a fix. They cannot correct me and neither do they want to say that they were wrong all these years and have been interpreting Vatican Council II with an irrational reasoning.