Tuesday, July 5, 2016

The ordinary magisterium has replaced the traditional Feeneyite theology with irrational and non traditional Cushingite theology : Wikipedia's errors on EENS

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Latin phrase extra Ecclesiam nulla salus means: "outside the Church there is no salvation".[1][2] The 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church explained this as "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body."
Lionel:"all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body." is the new theology. It's aim is to accomodate hypothetical cases like the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.
This expression comes from the writings of Saint Cyprian of Carthage, a bishop of the 3rd century.
Lionel: No it does not come from him.This is a falsehood.Saint Cyprian of Carthage held the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Being saved in invincible ignorance etc referred to hypothetical cases which were not relevant or exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So St.Cyprian of Carthage would not have been using the liberal theologians interpretations of the baptism of desire etc.
 The axiom is often used as shorthand for the doctrine that the Church is necessary for salvation.
Lionel: It is not an axiom.It is a dogma defined by three Church Councils.

The Catholic Church also teaches that the doctrine does not mean that everyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned (see below).
Lionel: The contemporary magisterium wrongly teaches this.Since they assume hypothetical cases are explicit.They infer that these explicit cases( which are really invisible) are practical exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
In this way, with this irrationality, the contemporary magisterium negates the pre Council of Trent magisterium.It taught that all need to enter the Church visibly for salvation.All need the baptism of water and the Catholic moral and faith teachings along with the Sacraments for salvation.
Some of the most pertinent Catholic expressions of this doctrine are: the profession of faith of Pope Innocent III (1208), the profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the bull Unam sanctam of Pope Boniface VIII (1302), and the profession of faith of the Council of Florence (1442). 
Lionel:They did not use the new theology to interpret the dogma.They held the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known for centuries before the Council of Trent.
The axiom "No salvation outside the Church" has been frequently repeated over the centuries in different terms by the ordinary magisterium.
Lionel: The ordinary magisterium has replaced the traditional Feeneyite theology with irrational and non traditional Cushingite theology.-Lionel Andrades

AUGUST 3, 2015

Wikipedia and Most Holy Trinity,Florida sedevacantist seminary make the same error  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/08/wikipedia-and-most-holy-trinity-usa.html

Wikipedia implies that the baptism of desire and blood are explicit so are exceptions to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus 

Fr. Cekada Teaching Class

Of lying Jesuits and sedes


If Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS where is the doctrinal basis for Bishop Sanborn and Fr.Anthony Cekada's sedevacantism?

NOVEMBER 20, 2012



NOVEMBER 16, 2012 Catholic traditionalists do not challenge the errors on Wikipedia since they assume Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus 


JULY 11, 2012



JULY 11, 2012



JULY 10, 2012

Fr.Leonard Feeney, Wikipedia and Vatican Council II


SEPTEMBER 24, 2011




AUGUST 11, 2011

SECULAR CATECHESIS FOR CATHOLICS : NO ONE OBJECTS IN THE MEDIAhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/08/secular-catechesis-for-catholics-no-one.html

JANUARY 31, 2011

THREE COMMON SENSE POINTS TO USE AGAINST PROPAGANDA AGAINST THE CHURCH - WIKIPEDIA AND FR.WILLIAM MOSThttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/01/three-common-sense-points-to-use.html


APRIL 23, 2010



OCTOBER 1, 2009





There is no reason to go into sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II( Cushingite).

Outside The Church There Is No Salvation And Refuting Baptism Of Desire

The most comprehensive book, facts, arguments and articles on the Catholic Church’s dogmatic teaching Outside the Church There is No Salvation and the baptism of desire controversy.

It is not the most comprehensive book  since over the last six years or so it has ignored my arguments on the baptism of desire, extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II.
The sedevacantist Peter and Michael Dimond are Cushingites.They interpret the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as referring to objective cases, seen in the flesh people.Then they reject the baptism of desire etc.Since they consider it an exception to the dogma EENS and for them EENS can have no exceptions.
Similarly they have gone into sedevacantism since they assume Vatican Council II( Cushingite) contradicts the dogma EENS.So they reject Vatican Council and affirm EENS and consider the popes anti-popes for accepting Vatican Council II( Cushingite). They are not aware of a Vatican Council II( Feneeyite) which is in harmony with their EENS( Feneeyite).
Their writings have no explicit and implicit concept.There is no objective and subjective baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance.For them invisible cases are always visible.

By Bro. Peter Dimond

This is the most comprehensive book that has been written on this dogma. 
No it is not the most comprehensive book. Since it excludes the argument on hypothetical cases not being explicit for us and so they cannot be practical exceptions to the dogma EENS.
It omits the argument on Vatican Council II ( LG 16) being explicit or implicit. So there can be two conclusions, two interpretations of Vatican Council II.
It omits the argument on the baptism of desire being interpreted as either being explicit or implicit.They cannot even conceive of such a concept.
It does not mention that the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake. The second part contradicts the first part, since in the second part of the Letter, hypothetical cases are assumed to be explicit and non-hypothetical.
There is no so much missing in their book.
This book answers all of the major objections on the baptism and salvation issue.
Lionel: Even after the book was written and with so many blog posts sent to them,  Peter and Michael Dimond refuse to address the arguments mentioned by me.They pull down my comments and do not discuss them on their website.Since the comments are out of their Cushingite reality, it would make no sense to them, since their premises are different.
 It contains the most important papal pronouncements on this issue, a whole history of the “baptism of desire” controversy, 
Lionel:It is part of the baptism of desire controversy since it interprets the popes and saints as referring to an explicit -for-us baptism of desire.
many detailed sections covering all angles of the “invincible ignorance” objection,
Lionel: Similarly the book considers 'invincible ignorance' as being explicit and so it is rejected. The book does not mention that 'invinicble ignorance' can be considered hypothetical for us humans  and known only to God.These theoretical cases are unknown for us.So it is not an issue with reference to EENS.
 a section responding to every objection you’ve probably heard of on this topic and many that you haven’t. 
Lionel: There is no basis for Peter and Michael Dimond's sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II.
Instead they should interpret Vatican Council II with LG 16 etc referring to invisible and hypothetical cases. Then LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc will not contradict their present interpretation of EENs.This means that they would have to announce  that they were wrong about Vatican Council II, wrong to infer that BOD,BOB and I.I referred to known people saved outside the Church and wrong to assume the Catechisms, Mystici Corporis etc contradict Feeneyite EENS.
The sedevacantists instead could tell Pope Francis and the CDF that they affrirm Vatican Council II in agreement with the old ecclesiology, the old salvation theology.There is no conflict between Vatican Council II and the 'strict interpretation' of the dogma EENS.They could ask the Vatican Curia to do the same.
So there is no reason to go into sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II( Cushingite).
This is the first and only book to have covered all of the dogmatic definitions on this topic about salvation from the ecumenical councils (including the little-known ones from the Council of Vienne and the Fifth Lateran Council – see section 1). Look through the Table of Contents if you are looking for a particular issue or objection. But we strongly recommend that people obtain this book from us for only $4.00 so that they can have all the quotations in book form.
Lionel:The book is inadequate and outdated on the issue of EENS. A lot of water has flown under the bridge since they wrote it.They are unable to comment upon their making an objective error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II,the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.Their entire theological house of cards, like that of the liberals, will come down.
They have been accusing Catholics of being in heresy without being aware of the Feeneyite-Cushingite distinction.Lionel  Andrades


AUGUST 13, 2014

Peter Dimond's new article on baptism of desire ignores two points I have asked


Dialogue with the MHFM comes to a stop again


AUGUST 10, 2014

Dialogue with the MHFM continued after a pause-2


AUGUST 9, 2014

Dialogue with the MHFM continued after a pausehttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/dialogue-with-mhfm-continued-after-pause.html

 MAY 17, 2014

Dialogue with the MHFM 2


MAY 15, 2014
Explicit Baptism of desire is to be rejected. Implicit BOD known only to God has been mentioned by the saints

I agree with you BOD is not an exception or relevant to EENS.It does not contradict EENS which says one must be joined to the Church with faith and baptism

Lionel, you keep saying baptism of desire is an exception to EENS. It is not. It is an affirmation of EENS, which says one must be joined to the Church formally or in desire to be saved. There are no exceptions to EENS.
I agree with you it is not an exception to EENS.It is not even relevant to EENS.It does not contradict the affirmation of EENS which says one must be joined to the Church formally ( with faith and baptism) or with desire ( followed by the baptism of water).
There are no exceptions to EENS, for me too.
1.However the Letter of the Holy Officed 1949 accepted by the magisterium, the SSPX and the sedevacantists considers being saved with the baptism of desire and blood- as excluding the baptism of water.This would make it an exception to EENS.
2.The International Theological Commission paper, Christianity and the World Religions (1997) criticizes Fr.Leonard Feeney for the rigorist interpretation of the dogma EENS and not recognising the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as an exception to all needing to enter the Church.In other words these cases were known to be different from the general rule,which says faith and the baptism of water, for adults, is necessary for salvation.
The ITC says Pope Pius XII criticizes Fr. Leonard Feeney for his interpretation of EENS.Meaning there were exceptions which existed and the priest would not accept this.
3.Similarly the offical website of the SSPX says there are three baptisms and criticizes Fr. Leonard Feeney for denying that a person can be saved with the baptism of desire etc with reference to his traditional 'strict' intepretation of EENS.So the SSPX is saying not every one needs to enter the Church in the present times.There are certain people under certain conditions who do not.While Fr. Feeney was saying this is nonsense.
4.Then Vatican Council II (LG 14) suggests not every one needs to enter the Church but only those who know. Those who are in invincible ignorance do not need to enter the Church. They are in an exemption category?
5.The Baltimore Catechism has placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.So the theoretical case of a catechumen who dies before receiving the baptism of water is also a baptism like the baptism of water.A person can be saved even without the baptism of water.There is an exemption here to the general rule on the necessity of the baptism of water.
6.Similarly Catholic Answers and EWTN, do not hold the strict interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney which says all need the baptism of water and Catholic faith, to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.They say that not all need to enter the Church.Why? Since a person can be saved with the baptism of desire etc.In other words these are personally known people who do not need the baptism of water to go to Heaven. They are excempted from the general, traditional rule on salvation.
So just about every one out there is saying there are exceptions.The exception, is the St. Benedict Centers in the USA.-Lionel Andrades