Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Cushingism is not part of the whole Tradition of the Church. Cardinal Burke interprets Vatican Council II and the dogma EENS with Cushingism: Amoris Laetitia is based on the new moral theology, the heretical theology.

Extracts from the blog LMS Chairman :Skojec and Burke on the significance of Amoris Laetitia
National Catholic Register ...not as a case of a Pope teaching heresy...- Joseph Shaw
Lionel: The new theology is heretical since it uses an irrationality to reject the old theology.The  new theology,with the irrationality is used to the interpret  Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
It assumes there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS.It wrongly assumes hypothetical cases are known exceptions to the exclusivist ecclesiology in the Church.
The irrationality of known exceptions is also used to change the Church's moral teaching. So there is a new moral theology based upon known exceptions to the teaching on mortal sin etc.
Pope Francis has used this moral theology in Amoris Laetitia.This is heresy.
The same new theology is used by Joseph Shaw to teach theology at Oxford University.He uses Cushingism ( there are known exceptions  to EENS) to interpret the dogma EENS. He also uses Cushingism to interpret Vatican Council II.
Feeneyism ( there are no known exceptions to EENS) is an option. Joseph Shaw could interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with Feeneyism but he does not do it. Since he will lose his mandatum to teach theology.The English bishops are Cushingites.
So he will teach theology with a lie, heresy and a break with doctrine associated with the Traditional Latin Mass.
____________________________________

Cardinal Burke lays great stress on interpreting Church documents in light of the whole tradition of the Church...


Lionel: Cushingism is not part of the whole Tradition of the Church. Cardinal Burke interprets Vatican Council II and the dogma EENS with Cushingism.
He also uses the moral theology of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which suggests there are known exceptions to the traditional understanding of mortal sin etc.
Amoris Laetitia is based on the new moral theology, the heretical theology.
If we omit the irrationality, the theology of AL changes.
Ask youself whom does the pope know who is living in adultery and who will still go to Heaven ? No one.
So there are no known exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin, concubinage, adultery etc.
_______________________________________

To reiterate what I've said a few times, Traditional Catholics, or at least those of us trying to engage with the hierarchy, magisterial documents, and the currently 'officially approved' theology, have become very used to this situation. 
Lionel: The currently 'officially approved' theology is Cushingism. It is heretical. It is irrational and non traditional. It is approved by Cardinal Burke.
_______________________________________

We are deeply interested in setting out our case in way which is comprehensible to mainstream Catholic theologians and people in the Roman Curia...
Lionel: FIUV and Joseph Shaw promote irrational Cushingism as a theology.This is the official theology.It is also the only interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS understood by Catholic theologians.
________________________________________

They also include the precise theological and canonical assertions a document is and is not making, and the light shed on the issues by the Church's whole teaching and tradition.
Lionel: The present document is based on liberal moral theology approved in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992).
-Lionel Andrades


Cardinal Raymond Burke accepts the liberal moral theology, which affirms known exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.So he will not have noticed this error in Amoris Laetitia.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/cardinal-raymond-burke-accepts-liberal.html


http://www.lmschairman.org/2016/04/skojec-and-burke-on-significance-of.html

_________________________________


The FIUV has been of no help to the Fischer More College and the Franciscans Friars of the Immaculate

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/the-fiuv-has-been-of-no-help-to-fischer.html


Pope Francis permits the Traditional Latin Mass only with the new ecclesiology and compromise : Joseph Shaw looks the other way
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/pope-francis-permits-traditional-latin.html



Ecclesiology is not changed with I.I and BOD.It never was.Vatican Council II was always orthodox on salvation.The ecclesiology was exclusivisthttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/ecclesiology-is-not-changed-with-ii-and.html
No text in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore or the Council of Trent says there are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salushttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/no-text-in-quanto-conficiamur-moerore.html
May 29, 2014

Cardinal Nicols and FIUV are telling a falsehood. Why do rank and file Catholics have to accept it?http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/cardinal-nicols-and-fiuv-are-telling.html

May 20, 2014

If someone is saved with ' a ray of the Truth' (Nostra Aetate 2) it is not known in 2014, so NA 2 does not contradict AG 7 or extra ecclesiam nulla salushttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/if-someone-is-saved-with-ray-of-truth.html#links

The voice of the Church, in the ancient liturgy, says there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and there are no exceptions.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/the-voice-of-church-in-ancient-liturgy.html

MARCH 16, 2016

Joseph Shaw removes comments: John Lamont prudently avoids the issue
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/joseph-shaw-removes-comments-john.html

______________________________________________


Exclusivist ecclesiology?
The new theology is based on being able to see the dead. Remove the premise, which is, "I can see the dead on earth".We then have the old ecclesiology, the exclusivist ecclesiology. The ecclesiology of Vatican Council II is exclusivist. Since it affirms the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Ad Gentes 7, which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.LG 16,LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 etc are not known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 or the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. We are left with the old ecclesiology.

Who agrees with you?
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/archbishop-thomas-egullickson-says.html
DEAN OF THEOLOGY AT ST. ANSELM SAYS THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
Implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martigioni 
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/implicit-intention-invincible-ignorance.html#links
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/contemporary-magisterium-is-in.html
____________________________
http://reader.creativeminorityreport.com/2015/05/bishop-dewane-families-have-right-to.html
ioceseofvenice.org/our-bishop/bishop-frank-j-dewane/ 



Cardinal Ratzinger also did not tell Archbishop Lefebvre that Vatican Council II could be interpreted with Feeneyism. The Archbishop and the SSPX bishops were rejecting Cushingite Vatican Council II





    • Photo Courtesy of CNS
      • OnePeterFive





    • Avatar





      1949? Pope Pius IX talked about
    • salvation for the invincibly ignorant in 
    • the mid 19th century

    Lionel:

    Yes and it was understood that 1) that this was a
     theoretical, hypothetical case (common knowledge) 
    and 2) it would be followed with the baptism of 
    water in the Church in a manenr known only to
     God.


    The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of
     Boston 1949 assumed 1) that the hypothetical case
     was explicit and that 2) this explicit case was an 
    objective exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam
     nulla salus (EENS).

    This is how the liberal theologians then started
     interpreting Pius IX and others who mentioned
     invincible ignorance and the desire for the 
    baptism of water by a catechumen who dies
     before receiving it.

    Since the theologians considered these 
    hypothetical cases 
     as being explicit they mentioned them in Vatican 
    Council 

     II (AG 7, LG 14) with reference to

     orthodox passages which
     support EENS( all need

     faith and baptism).They really should
     not be there. Since they are invisible
     cases and so irrelevant 
    to EENS.
    Then they also inserted so many hypothetical 
    cases in Vatican 
     Council as if they were exceptions to the 
    traditional teaching 
    on salvation (LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, AG 11( seeds of the 
    Word) etc.
    Cardinal Ratzinger accepted that there were explicit 
    exceptions to the dogma EENS and so there is a reference
     to being saved with the baptism of desire and in 
    invincible ignorance in the Catechism of the Catholic 
    Church(1992).They should not have been mentioned 
    in the Catechism.He needed to clarify that these cases 
    were hypothetical and so were not exceptions to the
     Feeneyite interpretation of EENS. He did not do this.
    To assume hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions
     to EENS is Cushingism for me. Cardinal Ratzinger
     interpreted EENS as a Cushingite.He also 
    interpreted Vatican Council II as a Cushingite.

    For me there are no explicit exceptions to EENS.
    This is Feeneyism. I interpret EENS as a Feeneynite.
     I also interpret Vatican Council II as a Feeneyite.
    For Cardinal Ratzinger LG 16 refers to a known
     exception to the dogma EENS since it is visible
     and objecively seen for him  ( Cushingism). For 

    me 
     LG 16 refers to an invisible case. So it is not 
    an 

    exception to EENS.
    So for me Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) does not
     contradict EENS ( Feeneyite).
    For Pope Benedict Vatican Council II ( Cushingite)
     contradicts EENs ( Feeneyite).
    So Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus was 
    written with the theology of Cushingism. 
    This was a flaw.
    He also did not tell Archbishop Lefebvre that 
    Vatican Council II could be interpreted with 
    Feeneyism. The Archbishop and the SSPX 
    bishops were rejecting Cushingite Vatican
     Council II.
    -Lionel


    http://www.onepeterfive.com/pope-benedict-breaks-his-silence-on-deep-crisis/#comment-2620012764

    We have the Anonymous Christian according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church approved by Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Schonborn



    Photo Courtesy of CNS

    Pope Benedict Breaks His Silence On 

    “Deep Crisis”



    OnePeterFive




    LionelAndrades
      philosophizer  24 days ago

    Theologically he has not rejected the 
    Anonymous Christian theory of his friend
     Fr. Karl Rahner. Since the Catechism of the
     Catholic Church 846 says all who are saved
     are saved through Jesus and the Church.
     He means there is salvation outside the 
    Church and a person can be saved in another
     religion through Jesus and the Church.
    This 'new theology' is based on the error
     in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The
     Letter wrongly assumed hypothetical cases
     were known exceptions to the dogma extra
     ecclesiam nulla salus.(EENS). So it 
    wrongly assumed that there were known
     cases of people saved with the baptism
     of desire or invincible ignorance, without
     the baptism of water.
    This is false. Since no one in the present
     or past, could have seen, known or met 
    someone saved without the baptism of 
    water. These cases would have been in 
    Heaven.
    However for Pope Benedict there is
     salvation outside the Church and so 
    he rejects the dogma EENS.It is 
    upon this irrationality, of being able to
     see people in Heaven who are exceptions to 
    EENS, that he has rejected the dogma EENS
     and assumes there is salvation outside the
     Catholic Church.
    ________________________



    Below, I have posted the full text of what Pope Emeritus
     Benedict said in the interview section referred to
     regarding the Anonymous Christian. I am still trying to
     work through what he said on my own trying to
    see if he fully rejected the anonymous Christian or if
     he was seeking to clarify that salvation only comes
     through Christ even if one does not fully know Christ.
    Lionel: This is not the issue. Here he refers to
     a hypothetical issue. It is theoretical.Speculative.
    The issue is does every one need to be a formal 
    member of the Church for salvation? This was 
    rejected by Fr.Rahner since he accepted salvation
     outside the Church. So did  Fr.Ratzinger. Their
     new theology was based on salvation outside
     the Church. There were exceptions to the 
    Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.
    So since there were exceptions it mean 
    someone could be saved in another religion.
     He would be saved through Jesus and the 
    Church (CCC 846). So we have the Anonymous
     Christian according to the Catechism of the
     Catholic Church approved by Cardinal Ratzinger 
    and Cardinal Schonborn.
    _______________________________
     I appreciated your answer above and wondered
     if the full text changes your interpretation of wha
    t the pope emeritus meant versus what the reporter
    wrote (and if so, how)?
    Lionel:It does not change what I wrote
     above.
    _______________________________
    Thank you very much!
    "Lately several attempts have been formulated
     in order to reconcile the universal necessity
     of the Christian faith with the opportunity to
    save oneself without it.
    Lionel: 'With the opportunity to save
     oneself without it'?! He considers it
     a possibility.
    _____________________________
     I will mention here two: first, the well-known
     thesis of the anonymous Christians of Karl Rahner.
    Lionel: Which is based on 'the opportunity
     to save oneself without being a formal
     member of the Church' and is part of
     the new theology incorporated in CCC
     846 and 1257.
    ____________________________
     He sustains that the basic, essential act at the
    basis of Christian existence, decisive for salvation
    in the transcendental structure of our 
    consciousness, consists in the opening to the 
    entirely Other, toward unity with God. The Christian
     faith would in this view cause to rise to 
    consciousness what is structural in man as such. 
    So when a man accepts himself in his essential
     being, he fulfills the essence of being a Christian
     without knowing what it is in a conceptual 
    way. The Christian, therefore, coincides with
     the human and, in this sense, every man who
     accepts himself is a Christian even if he does
     not know it.
    Lionel: The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla 
    salus says outside the Church there is 
    no salvation. Cantate Dominio, Council
     of Florence 1441 mentions schismatics
     ( Orthodox Christians) and heretics 
    ( Protestants) being on the way to 
    Hell. They believe in God and even
     believe in Christ.
    _______________________________
     It is true that this theory is fascinating,
    but it reduces Christianity itself to a pure
    conscious presentation of what a human
     being is in himself and therefore overlooks
    the drama of change and renewal that is
     central to Christianity.
    Lionel: Words.The real issue is that there is 
    no known salvation outside the Church.
     So there are no known exceptions to
     the dogma EENS.
    ______________________________

     Even less acceptable is the solution proposed
     by the pluralistic theories of religion, for which
     all religions, each in their own way, would be
     ways of salvation and in this sense, in their effects
    must be considered equivalent.
    Lionel: The International Theological 
    Commission in a theological paper 
    titled Christianity and the World 
    Religions supports a theology of 
    religions. It was approved by Cardinal
     Ratzinger.
    This was possible since there is salvation
     outside the Church for Pope Benedict
     and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria 
    ( Ex-President,ITC).
    ______________________________

     The critique of religion of the kind exercised
     in the Old Testament, in the New Testament
    and in the early Church is essentially more
    realistic, more concrete and true in its
    examination of the various religions.
    Such a simplistic reception is not
     proportional to the magnitude of the issue."
    Lionel: I don't know what he is referring 
    to here.
    -Lionel Andrades
    http://www.onepeterfive.com/pope-benedict-breaks-his-silence-on-deep-crisis/#comment-2620012764

    Cardinal Raymond Burke accepts the liberal moral theology, which affirms known exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.So he will not have noticed this error in Amoris Laetitia.

    National Catholic Register

    His Eminence has chosen to focus on the nature of an exhortation-- according to Cardinal Burke, quoting the pope, it is "not an act of the magisterium"; it is a "personal" document.  Hence, nothing in it changes doctrine, and no pastoral practice that would change or defy doctrine can be divined from it.

    http://stlouiscatholic.blogspot.it/2016/04/a-brief-word-on-cardinal-burkes-response.html

    On  other blog postS over the years I have mentioned that Cardinal Raymond Burke and Fr.John Hardon were also interpreting hypothetical cases as being exceptions to the traditional teachings on salvation and in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Since Cardinal Raymond Burke accepts the liberal moral theology, which affirms known exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.So  he will not have noticed this error in Amoris Laetitia.
    Cardinal Burke does not note that in the Catechism of the Catholic Church doctrine had been changed on faith ( salvation) and morals( mortal sin) with alleged known exceptions? The new theology which he affirms is based on this irrationality. 


    Cardinal Christoph Schonborn (right)  and Cardinal Lorenxo Baldisseri hold a copy of Pope Francis's apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (CNS)
    So Amoris Laetitia for me does not contradict the 16th century, understanding of mortal sin since for me there are no hypothetical exceptions to the old moral teaching on sin.However for the cardinals hypothetical cases are exceptions to the old moral law. So Amoris Laetitia has to be a confusing and heretical document, I mentioned in a previous blog post.
    So as a Catholic I affirm the traditional moral and salvation theology of the Church in accord with the Council of Trent and without rejecting Vatican Council II and the other Catechisms, since I do not confuse what is invisible as being visible, hypothetical as being objective.
    If there is a hypothetical case and the pope considers it a concrete case of knowing someone who is living in concubinage and will not be going to Heaven, this is his perspective.This is something only God can judge. I know that he cannot say that any person, due to a circumstance, or a situation, will not go to Hell and is not living in mortal sin.He cannot know.Presently this is his irrational reasoning. So for him a hypothetical case is objectively known and so is an exception to the traditional moral law.
    Related image
    The two popes confuse what is subjective as being objective.Then they infer that these so called objective cases are exceptions to the traditional teaching on morals and faith.This factual error is the basis of the new liberal moral and faith theology, the new theology, the new ecclesiology.
    We have to be aware of this error when reading Vatican Council II and the catechisms which followed the Council of Trent.It is based on this error, this 'development' in the Catechism(1992) that so many wrong inferences were made in Amoris Laetitiae to support adultery and condone mortal sin and sacrilege.1
    Related image
    In another blog post I mentioned I need a personal copy of the Cathechism of the Council of Trent.Since in the catechisms which followed Trent there is a factual error. They have mixed up what is hypothetical as being explicit.The same mistake is there in Vatican Council II.There are entire passages based on this mistake.There are so many superflous references which should not have been there.They are meaningless.The Catechism(1992) says God is not limited to the Sacraments.Then there are the three hypothetical conditions of mortal sin.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are mentioned, as if they are known in the flesh cases in the present times.This is all deadwood.They have nothing to do with the passages they are associated with.The same confusion, mixing up what is invisible as being visible is there in the text of Vatican Council II.
    Why did cardinals Ratzinger and Schonborn have to refer to God not being limited to the Sacraments (CCC 1257) ? Why was the case of the catechumen saved with the baptism of desire placed in  Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism' for salvation? Who is this catechumen? Do we know the name and surname of any one saved without the baptism of water since 1992-2016?

    Similarly why did the Baltimore Catechism have to place, in the Baptism Section,  the desire for the baptism of water by an unknown catechumen who dies before receiving it ?  Who in Baltimore knew of someone saved without the baptism of water but with this new baptism ? Is the baptism of desire really like the baptism of water? Can we repeat the baptism of desire and give it to someone?
    Vatican Council II is full of this mistake. I repeat ,there are entire passages based on this mistake.'Seeds of the Word'(AG 11) , 'imperfect communion with the Church', 'elements of sanctification and truth' found outside the Church, ' a ray of that Truth' which saves, saved in invincible ignorance and with a good conscience(LG 16) etc. 2
    Related image
    On  other blog posts over the years I have mentioned that Cardinal Raymond Burke and Fr.John Hardon were also interpreting hypothetical cases as being exceptions to the traditional teachings on salvation and in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Since Cardinal Raymond Burke accepts the liberal moral theology, which affirms known exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.So  he will not have noticed this error in Amoris Laetitia.
    Cardinal Burke does not note that in the Catechism of the Catholic Church doctrine had been changed on faith ( salvation) and morals( mortal sin) with alleged known exceptions. The new theology which he affirms is based on this irrationality. It is heretical.
    -Lionel Andrades

    1

    This error is all over Vatican Councl II and it should be enough for any one to reject the Council if they wanted to :its also there in Amoris Laetitia

    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/this-error-is-all-over-vatican-councl.html
    2.
    I want to read the Catechism of Trent.Too many factual mistakes in other catechisms and Vatican Council II
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/i-want-to-read-catechism-of-trentto.html
    http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/amoris-laetitia-and-the-constant-teaching-and-practice-of-the-church/
    __________________________
    MARCH 31, 2015

    Cardinal Raymond Burke approved the article. Fr.Hardon like Cardinal Marchetti makes this wrong inference in the article

    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/cardinal-raymond-burke-approved-article.html








    Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Mass
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/cardinal-raymond-burke-interprets.html


    Rome made a mistake in 1949 and Fr.John Hardon did not notice it
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/rome-made-mistake-in-1949-and-frjohn_3.html


    The Catechumen you refer to is a hypothetical case for you and me. So it is not an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : Fr.John Hardon too did not notice this.http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/the-catechuman-you-refer-to-is.html

    For Cardinal Raymond Burke these hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salushttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/for-cardinal-raymond-burke-these.html