Latest topics
» Magsiterial Heresy ?
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magisterium should apologise to the SSPX for the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:34 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Francis MICM made a mistake on Vatican Council II
Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Legion of Christ universities in Rome adapt to leftist laws
Fri May 22, 2015 7:53 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» CM, SSPX, MICM deny the Faith to please superiors
Thu May 21, 2015 4:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX and Church Militant are using the same liberal theology and are unaware of it
Wed May 20, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Michael Voris uses liberal theology and yet critcizes Michael Coren
Tue May 19, 2015 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fr.John Zuhlsdorf condones Mass for suicide
Tue May 19, 2015 9:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II is traditional or liberal depending on how you interpret the Letter of the Holy Office
Mon May 18, 2015 5:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Church Militant unable to answer questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Sun May 17, 2015 5:55 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Andre Marie MICM and Christine Niles approve liberal theology on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Christine Niles misses the elephant in the living room
Fri May 15, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Cardinal Pell recommends the Roman Forum and telling a lie
Wed May 13, 2015 9:43 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» GOOGLE CLOSES DOWN BLOG EUCHARIST AND MISSION
Tue May 12, 2015 9:23 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this
Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:25 am by George Brenner

» Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error
Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:27 pm by tornpage

» Fr.Robert Barron in Catholicism uses an irrational proposition to reach an irrational conclusion
Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:49 am by Lionel Andrades

» Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Mass
Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:25 am by Lionel Andrades

» Beautiful Gregorian Chant
Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:10 pm by tornpage

» Fr.Robert Barron in Catholicism uses an irrational proposition to reach an irrational conclusion
Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:47 am by Lionel Andrades


Christine Niles misses the elephant in the living room

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Christine Niles misses the elephant in the living room

Post  Lionel L. Andrades on Thu May 14, 2015 10:08 am

It was courageous of Christine Niles to produce a Catholic show on Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, a subject which Church Militant.com observes correctly- is 'little discussed'.However she missed the elephant in the living room when she did not say that the  Magisterium made an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The Holy Office had it wrong.The confusion was then placed in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14)and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257,846).Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus make the same mistake.
The Mic'd Up program used the theology of the liberals.It accepts the new doctrines on salvation, which contradict the dogma,  but  would be approved by the local bishop and the Vatican who are implenting a lie on this issue.
 Father Roman Manchester and Charles Coulombe were of no help in discussing the new theology which comes from the Letter of the Holy Office which Christine quoted.They are in line with the magisterium's new theology, which is a break with the past and an interpretation of Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of rupture.This is politically correct.

By interpreting Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma, they are affirming the same interpretation of the Council, and other Church documents,as the liberals and dissenters. Father Roman Manchester is orthodox but he is drawing on pre-Vatican Council II teachings. So was Christine.Fr.Roman  did not say that Vatican Council II supports the Feeneyite  version of the dogma. He was vague. No one said that Vatican Council II supports the rigorist traditional interpretation of the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.
So they imply that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire refer to known cases in the present times, who are physically visible to become exceptions to the dogma, or even relevant to the traditional interpretation.This is the cut off point.

Do you accept invincible ignorance etc as being known and physically visible to us in 2015 ?

Instead they went into the common theology of invincible ignorance etc which is used by the liberals and which has been accepted by the contemporary magisterium.The error is magisterial.    
Of course this error would have the approval of Archbishop Allen Vignon, the Archbishop of Detroit where Church Militant is located.

Church Militant.com has to address two simple questions.
1.Do we we know anyone in the present times( 2015) saved without the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance ? ( Can we physically see such cases who are now in Heaven)?
2.Since we physically cannot see such persons on earth there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says all need to be formal members of the Church ? ( There are no known cases in 2015 saved without 'faith and baptism'?)

Instead the reasoning used by about every one in Detroit is that we do know of persons saved in 2015  with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water.We can see apparitions.This is taught to school children there in Catechism classes. It may not be said directly but this is implied.
So since these cases are visible to all in Detroit in the present times; they  can see these apparitions of non Catholics in Heaven, there are explicit exceptions to the old teaching on all needing to formally convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.The thrice defined dogma has been set aside.

If Mic'd Up  answered those two questions honestly they would say that there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the rigorist interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. This would mean:-

1.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake.It is a fact of life that we cannot see the dead-saved. So how could there be known exceptions?

2. Mentioning being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) was superflous.They are irrelevant to the dogma and the orthodox passages in AG 7 and LG 14.

3.The Catechism of the Catholic Church repeated this error in 1257.It stated that God is not limited to the Sacraments.CCC 1257 was not referring to persons in bi location who baptise persons or sending a preacher as St. Thomas Aquinas taught. It is  referring to defacto known exceptions to the dogma.This is how CCC 1257 is generally interpreted.It is pro Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani and contra Fr.Leonard Feeney.   It was as if Cardinal Ratzinger knew of someone who did not need faith and baptism and would be saved or, someone who was already in Heaven in 1992 without faith and baptism. This was the irrational inference made by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani in 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.

Christine quoted an excellent article by Brother Francis Maluf MICM, of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Manchester,USA. However the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Manchester and Worcester,USA interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma.Part of the problem! So for them there are known exceptions to the dogma mentioned in Vatican Council.Charles Coulombe did not speak on this subject.   The elephant in the living room. There was no mention of the Fr.Leonard  Feeney issue.

Fr.Leonard Feeney was being asked to say that he could see known exceptions to the dogma and he refused to do so. On the other hand the Holy Office and the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits  were suggesting that they could see these apparitions.This was absurd, irrational and heretical. It was the magisterium which had gone wrong.  

If Church Militant.com speaks the truth they would be serving Catholics, but they would be contradicting the magisterium in the Letter of the Holy Office and the Catechism of the Catholic Church( 1257, 846).They would be accused of being anti-Semitic and racist  by the political Left.The local bishop would say that their position is not Catholic.

Is it any surprise that extra ecclesiam nulla salus is little discussed today ?  

-Lionel Andrades

Lionel L. Andrades

Posts : 20
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2015-05-11

Back to top Go down

There is nothing in the Catechism to contradict the Church's teaching on salvation- Christine Niles

Post  Lionel L. Andrades on Fri May 15, 2015 9:21 am



I like Christine Niles response to Kithri.There is nothing in the Catechism of the Catholic Church to contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
There is nothing since 'elements of sanctification and truth' are not, and cannot be known to us in the present times. We cannot meet someone on the streets saved ( or about to be saved) as such.
Similarly neither do we know of any Protestant who will be saved in his religion without Catholic Faith, which include the Sacraments and the faith and moral teachings of the Church to avoid  mortal sin and to preserve Sanctifying Grace. Today afternoon or night I cannot meet someone who is saved 'outside the Church'.
Here is Kithri's  comment and her answer:

Kithri:
818   “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers.... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”272 (1271)

819   “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth”273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.”274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”276

Ummm...is the Catechism hogwash?  And if so, which parts?

Christine Niles to Kithri:
None of this contradicts the Church's constant teaching that outside the Church there is no salvation. There are elements of grace outside the Catholic Church, e.g., the sacraments of baptism and marriage in protestant communities. But note the language: these are "MEANS of salvation"--that doesn't mean they guarantee or secure salvation for those outside the Catholic Church. A baptized protestant can lose his salvation by committing a single mortal sin; and without the sacrament of penance (found within the Catholic Church), protestants are at a loss to obtain absolution.
This is why it's so crucial for Catholics to evangelize and help bring souls into the Catholic Church.
________________

It is important to note that even though CCC 1257 and 846 are controversial because of the mistake made in 1949, they both  can be interpreted in accord with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
CCC 846 and 1257 do not refer to defacto, known  cases saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. De facto , objectively we do not and cannot know of any exception.
-Lionel Andrades

Lionel L. Andrades

Posts : 20
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2015-05-11

Back to top Go down

Avoid Marchetti's factual error and the Catechism is not ambigous

Post  Lionel L. Andrades on Fri May 15, 2015 9:38 am

In continuation of the previous post I would like to call attention to another comment on Mic'd Up : Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

Glenn Lego:
The Catechism is ambiguous about this or so it seems

Lionel:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) is ambigous when the reader is not aware of the objective error made by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani in the Letter of the Holy Ofice  1949. If one avoids the Marchetti factual error the Catechism can be interpreted in agreement with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Marchetti assumed that there was salvation outside the Church and so every one did not need to formally enter the Church in the present times.
He was not aware of his objective mistake.We do not know any one who could be saved in the present times without the baptism of water and neither could Marchetti know any one in 1949.The present times means today.It would have to be today since the dogma refers to all needing to be formal members of the Church today. One can only become a formal member with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. The baptism of water has to be administered today. It is something concrete. So every one needs to convert today and today I cannot meet someone who is saved without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7).So today there cannot be exceptions to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma.
So in this sense there cannot be anything in the Catechism of the Catholic Church or Vatican Council II to contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Church Fathers, Church Councils and saints.

So be aware that there are no objective exceptions to the dogma. There cannot be objective exceptions for us human beings.    

Lionel L. Andrades

Posts : 20
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2015-05-11

Back to top Go down

The dogma says all. Vatican Council II , Ad Gentes 7 says all.

Post  Lionel L. Andrades on Fri May 15, 2015 9:54 am


In continuation of the previous post:
Michael Petek :
The determinant of non-salvation is, then, whether there is full advertence of the mind to the grave matter of standing extra exxlesiam and full consent of the will.

Lionel:
The dogma says all need to formally enter the Church. Cardinal Marchetti suggested in the second part of the Letter that a distinction should be made between those who know and those who did not know. Since a person in invincible ignorance could be saved.
He was referring to a hypothetical case being a defacto exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma. He considered this an exception. So he wanted a distinction to be made.
Those who know or do not know are known only to God.We cannot judge any such case in the present times.
So this hypothetical case for him could not be an objective exception to the dogma.
This error was not corrected and it was incorporated in Vatican Council II.
The  magisterium unfortunately interprets being saved in invincible ignorance as an exception to the dogma implying that hypothetical cases are objective exceptions in the present times.

The determinant of non-salvation is, then, whether there is full advertence of the mind to the grave matter of standing extra exxlesiam and full consent of the will.

This can only be judged by God.
The dogma says all. Vatican Council II , Ad Gentes 7 says all.
All means every one in the present times.
The ordinary means of salvation is 'faith and baptism' it is not invincible ignorance.
So every one needs to convert formally into the Church for salvation and we cannot say that any one in particular is an exception, as if we can judge his mind,his consent and will.

_________________

Lionel L. Andrades

Posts : 20
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2015-05-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Christine Niles misses the elephant in the living room

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum