| |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
|
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Those who support Fr.Leonard Feeney are still not pointing it out to all that salvation in Heaven is invisible for us
Pope Francis and the Vatican Curia want the Franciscans of the Immaculate to interpret Church documents with an irrationality : appeal for justice
Pope Francis wants the Franciscans of the Immaculate to accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 while assuming that the baptism of desire is explicit for us instead of implicit.
He then wants this same irrationality to be used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
The Holy Office 1949 made an error when it assumed that implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma on salvation by Fr.Leonard Feeney.
This error is carried over by the Vatican Curia in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The Franciscans of the Immaculate have to affirm Vatican Council II while assuming that all salvation in Heaven is visible on earth. Then it has to be wrongly concluded that these 'visible' cases are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Tradition.
Could the relatives of the Sisters in the Franciscans of the Immaculate(FFI) community bring this issue to the attention of the Vatican ?. Please ask them to allow the FFI to accept Vatican Council II and all magisterial documents without assuming salvation in Heaven is physically visible on earth.
In this way the FFI can affirm Tradition and also Vatican Council II. Please ask Pope Francis and the Vatican Curia to first endorse a Vatican Council II without the irrational inference.Also please ask the FFI dissidents to do the same.
-Lionel Andrades
The Letter of the Holy Office makes it an issue. It considers the baptism of desire an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Pope Francis wants the Franciscans of the Immaculate to accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 while assuming that the baptism of desire is explicit for us instead of implicit.
He then wants this same irrationality to be used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
The Holy Office 1949 made an error when it assumed that implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma on salvation by Fr.Leonard Feeney.
This error is carried over by the Vatican Curia in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The Franciscans of the Immaculate have to affirm Vatican Council II while assuming that all salvation in Heaven is visible on earth. Then it has to be wrongly concluded that these 'visible' cases are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Tradition.
Could the relatives of the Sisters in the Franciscans of the Immaculate(FFI) community bring this issue to the attention of the Vatican ?. Please ask them to allow the FFI to accept Vatican Council II and all magisterial documents without assuming salvation in Heaven is physically visible on earth.
In this way the FFI can affirm Tradition and also Vatican Council II. Please ask Pope Francis and the Vatican Curia to first endorse a Vatican Council II without the irrational inference.Also please ask the FFI dissidents to do the same.
-Lionel AndradesThe Letter of the Holy Office makes it an issue. It considers the baptism of desire an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/07/the- letter-of-holy-office-makes- it.html#links
http://eucharistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/07/letter-of- holy-office-49-with.html#links
http://eucharistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/06/frfehlner- has-to-accept-batman-version. html#links
Where does the Letter of the Holy Office make a factual error ?
http://eucharistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/06/frfehlner- has-to-accept-batman-version. html#links
Where does the Letter of the Holy Office make a factual error ?
Where does the Letter of the Holy Office make a factual error ?
Objectively we cannot see a baptism of desire case: the Holy Office 1949 implies we can
http://eucharistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/06/ objectively-we-cannot-see- baptism-of.html
The Holy Office 1949 used the dead man walking and visible theory : it was a mistake
http://eucharistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/06/the-holy- office-1949-used-dead-man.html
This would be an error even if it was said by Pope Francis or Archbishop Lefebvre
http:/euchaistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/06/this- would-be-error-even-if-it-was- said.html
Implicit desire is always implicit. Did the Holy Office assume it was explicit?
Objectively we cannot see a baptism of desire case: the Holy Office 1949 implies we can http://eucharistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/06/ objectively-we-cannot-see- baptism-of.html
The Holy Office 1949 used the dead man walking and visible theory : it was a mistake http://eucharistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/06/the-holy- office-1949-used-dead-man.html
A Catholic school boy and a Buddhist meet Archbishop Marchetto and Professor Roberto de Mattei at their next meeting
http://eucharistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/06/a- catholic-school-boy-and- buddist-meet.html
Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake with the Letter of the Holy Office and carried it over into Vatican Council II http://eucharistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/06/ archbishop-lefebvre-made- mistake-with.html
The SSPX teaches that the baptism of desire ( explicit for us) is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus http://eucharistandmission.Modernists in Rome and the SSPX are in agreement
http://eucharistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/07/ modernists-in-rome-and-sspx- are-in.html#links
Martrydom is not a known exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2014
http://eucharistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/07/martrydom- is-not-known-exception-to. html#links
Invisible persons cannot be an exception on earth to Fr.Leonard Feeney saying every one needs the baptism of water for salvation
http://eucharistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/06/invisible- persons-cannot-be-exception. html
I accept implicit baptism of desire according to Vatican Council II, Mystici Corporis etc http://eucharistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/06/i-accept- implicit-baptism-of-desire. html
Even if there were many cases of persons saved with the baptism of desire ( without the baptism of water) it would be irrelevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/06/even-if- there-were-many-cases-of.html
We do not know any potential St.Emerentiana or St.Victor so there is only one way of salvation in the Catholic Church in 2014
http://eucharistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/06/you-do- not-know-any-potential.html
Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church : no contradiction
http://eucharistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/06/catechism- of-catholic-church-affirms. html
If someone has justification God will provide the means for the baptism of water
http://eucharistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/06/if- someone-has-justification-god- will.html
Modernists in Rome and the SSPX in agreement: 1949 Holy Office Letter teaches Modernist version of EENS - CathInfo. forum
Modernists in Rome and the SSPX in agreement: 1949 Holy Office Letter teaches Modernist version of EENS - CathInfo. forum
http://eucharistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/06/ modernists-in-rome-and-sspx- in.html
No one is saved without the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith
No one is saved without the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith
http://eucharistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/06/no-one-is- saved-without-baptism-of.html
You can witness a martyrdom but cannot say the person is a martyr and is in Heaven without the baptism of water
http://eucharistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/06/you-can- witness-martyrdom-but-cannot. html
Fault is with the SSPX Resistance.They have used the irrational premise
http://eucharistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/06/fault-is- with-sspx-resistancethey-have. html
Hypothetical cases cannot be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted over the centuries
http://eucharistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/06/ hypothetical-cases-cannot-be- exceptions.html
Where is the actual case of someone saved outside the Church ? There is none http://eucharistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/06/where-is- actual-case-of-someone-saved. html
Supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney unfortunately still use the irrational inference .It can be seen in their interpretation of Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/06/ supporters-of-frleonard- feeney.html
Priests who offer Holy Mass in the vernacular now affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus : SSPX, Fr.Paul Kramer deny it
http://eucharistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/06/priests- who-offer-holy-mass-in.html
I talk in terms of visible and invisible only because Catholics in general are unaware that they are using these terms
http://eucharistandmission. blogspot.it/2014/06/i-talk-in- terms-of-visible-and.html
The SSPX teaches that the baptism of desire ( explicit for us) is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus
All the followers of Father Feeney, as did Father himself, hold that Saint Thomas was in error for teaching Baptism of Desire;
Lionel:
An explicit- for- us baptism of desire is error.
St.Thomas Aquinas did not say that the man in the forest in invincible ignorance was a visible and known case and so was an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus which he held i.e there are no exceptions.
The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the community of Fr.Leonard Feeney, accept a baptism of desire followed by a baptism of water.They cite the conditions for the baptism of desire. So they do not reject the baptism of desire.It still is invisible for us and so is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The SSPX rejects this. Baptism of Desire is relevant in that it has been universally taught by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. It is not an "exception," visible or otherwise.
Lionel:
So you are saying that the baptism of desire ( implicit for us) is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
And you agree that the SSPX teaches that the baptism of desire ( explicit for us) is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
-Lionel Andrades
The Letter of the Holy Office makes it an issue. It considers the baptism of desire an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Baptism of Desire, even if such is visible (say, in the case of a martyr) is not an exception to EENS. One would have died with the grace of Baptism but not its character. Why is this an issue?
Lionel:
The Letter of the Holy Office makes it an issue. It considers the baptism of desire an exception to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX make it an issue when they conside the baptism of desire as explicit, visible and so an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
-Lionel Andrades
Has the SSPX committed a mistake when it considers the baptism of desire as being relevant to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney?
think that you are "pounding on open doors", at least to an extent:
Salvation is never visible to us, whether with or without Sacramental Baptism.
Lionel:
So then is the baptism of desire which refers to salvation in Heaven an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, when there are no visible cases on earth?
Is it relevant to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney?
Has the SSPX committed a mistake when it considers the baptism of desire as being relevant to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney?
Agreed? However, you need to differentiate between a moral certitude and an absolute one. It is easy to imagine a situation of a convert from Islam, who, to a moral certitude, we can say was never baptized, but upon conversion to the One True Faith, was killed confessing the Name of Jesus Christ. To a moral certitude, we can say that person went to Heaven, even without sacramental Baptism.
Lionel:
That is what the SSPX teaches and believes.
Lionel:
Does the SSPX teach that the baptism of desire being not visible to us in real life is not an exception to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney?- Lionel Andrades
Letter of the Holy Office '49 with the irrational inference is rejected : Vatican Council II without the false premise is accepted
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.
In Vatican Council II, Mystici Corporis etc these cases (invincible ignorance) are just mentioned per se.It is not stated in the text that they are explicit for us .Neither is it said that they are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.One can rationally infer that implicit desire etc is known only to God and is invisible for us in real life.So I accept them as possibilities.I accept them as hypothetical , theoretical possibilities.They are always hypothetical cases.I cannot choose to consider them as anything else.One cannot choose to consider them explicit since they are not explicit.
Hypothetical cases cannot be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney which says all need to convert into the Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.All need to be formal members of the Church for salvation.
Hypothetical cases cannot be considered visible exceptions.Hypothetical cases are not cases of known salvation outside the Church.I do not know any such person-saved in 2014.
So I accept implicit for us baptism of desire and reject explicit for us baptism of desire.
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.
SSPX, SEDEVACANTISTS
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.They are not aware of the connectiion between the Letter of the Holy Office and Vatican Council II with the use of the irrational inference.
This is all the confusion in the Church.
-Lionel Andrades
____________________________________________
Note : LG 16 in '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' does not state that these caes are physically visible to us in real life or that they are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The text does not state this.
16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in
various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the
people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ
was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people
remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of
the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who
acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the
Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore
the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far
distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He
who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills
that all men be saved.(128) 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.(19*) 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. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon
by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given
by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men,
deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have
exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the
Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God,
are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure
the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach
the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care
and attention.-Lumen Gentium 16,Vatican Council II
Note: Here again the text does not state that invincible ignorance is objectively seen or that it is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
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. Sincerely observing the
natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey
God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the
efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and
clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme
kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of
deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."Quanto Conficiamur Moerore - Pope Pius
IX
Modernists in Rome and the SSPX are in agreement.
The 'modernists in Rome' have the same position on the baptism of desire as the Society of St.Pius X( SSPX).Both groups consider the baptism of desire as explicit instead of implicit for us. The 'modernists in Rome' ( to use an SSPX term) along with Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay have the same position on ' a ray of Truth'(Nostra Aetate 2) .They consider a person being saved with ' a ray of the Truth' as not being invisible for us but objectively seen in real life.
extra ecclesia nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades
______________________________________
Modernists in Rome and the SSPX in agreement: 1949 Holy Office Letter teaches Modernist version of EENS - CathInfo. forum
SSPX Albano, Italy anniversary : 40 years of confusion
Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake with the Letter of the Holy Office and carried it over into Vatican Council II http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/archbishop-lefebvre-made-mistake-with.html
Martrydom is not a known exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2014
So, you're claiming that it is impossible for us to witness the martyrdom, even to a moral certitude, of a true Catholic catechumen, that is, someone who ended their live without sacramental Baptism?
Lionel:
We can witness someone being killed for his Catholic Faith. We can believe he is a martyr.Whether he finally is a matryr, in individual cases only God can decide.We cannot know.
Here the issue is can a martyr who has died without the baptism of water be an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma on salvation according to Fr.Leonard Feeney ? Can this dead person be an exception to all needing faith and baptism for salvation in 2014? Can this case of martyrdom without the Sacrament of Baptism be an exception which is known to us?
Do you know any such case during your entire life ?
Is this case relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
No! It is not relevant since it is not visible to us ; it is not known to us in the present times.What does not exist in our reality, however good it is theoretically, can not be an exception. It can be an event, a happening, a possibility but not an exception.
-Lionel Andrades
Hobby Lobby in Pictures: Americans Cheer and Thank God After SCOTUS Victory
by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 6/30/14
The Supreme Court gave the pro-life movement a huge victory today. It determined the Obama administration couldn’t force Hobby Lobby and any other company or business that doesn’t want to pay for abortion-causing drugs or birth control for its employees to obey the HHS mandate forcing it to do so.
Before and after the decision, pro-life advocates flooded the steps of the Supreme Court building with signs and pictures and led chants as the justices were preparing to hand down their decision. Afterwards, they cried tears of joy, cheered and prayed to thank God for the decision.
Some pro-life activists gathered at local Hobby Lobby stores to celebrate. Here is a collection of pictures from Students for Life of America, Concerned Women for America, the Susan B. Anthony List, March for Life and others…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)