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


SSPX and Church Militant are using the same liberal theology and are unaware of it

View previous topic View next topic Go down

SSPX and Church Militant are using the same liberal theology and are unaware of it

Post  Lionel L. Andrades on Wed May 20, 2015 9:54 am


Here are two comments form the Mic'd Up website on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. There is a charge that Church Militant is another SSPX website!
The commentor is correct, in the sense, that though Michael Voris criticizes the SSPX, he is unaware that he is using the same liberal theology on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as the SSPX.
He also cannot expect a correction from the St. Benedict Centers, since they also use this irrational theology in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, as do their bishops in the diocese of Worcester and Manchester,USA.

PolicyWonk •5 days ago
To imply that Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus means non-Catholic Christians are headed for hell is heresy.
Lionel:
This is the teaching of the Catholic Church according to Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (845 and CCC 1257 and 846 in part), Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence and the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.So in this sense it is magisterial.


That was established by the case of Fr. Feeney who said exactly that.
Lionel:
The first part of the Letter supported Fr.Leonard Feeney. The second part, contradicted the first part.
The second  part used Apparition Theology. It is irrational and forms a new doctrine in the Church.


As a result he was branded a heretic and ex-communicated for lack of obedience to the Church's teaching.
Lionel:
He was affirming the traditional, centuries old interpretation of the dogma. It was the Holy Office and the Archbishop of Boston in 1949 who were inferring that there were exceptions to the traditional teaching, since they knew of exceptions,apparitions.This is irrational and is the basis of their new theology.Catholics are not obliged to observe this absurd teaching.


The letter from the Holy Office concerning this question is online and says, in closing, concerning those who insist about repeating this contentious idea "Therefore let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty obedience toward the Church is much graver than than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by unconscious desire". Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restrictions, that principle; submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation." In other words, it is those of you who say non-Catholics are headed for hell are engaging in heresy and this letter from the Holy Office is stating that submission on this point is required as necessary for your salvation.
Lionel:
This would mean Vatican Council II is in heresy(AG 7,LG 14), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (845,1257), three defined dogmas on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
This is the traditional teaching of the Church for centuries and the second part of the Letter is a rupture with this teaching.


In short, this letter says it is you who could lose your salvation because you have no excuse.
Lionel:
The second part of the Letter of the Holy  Office made a factual mistake. Cardinal Marchetti did not know of any one saved outside the Church. He did not know of any one saved without the baptism of water and the Catholic Church. Also no document before 1949 claimed that there were known cases of persons who died without the baptism of water.Nor were there  documents which claimed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Mystici Corporis and the Council of Trent did not make this claim as it is reported by liberal theologians. They are wrong.
So he did not know of any exceptions, personally, and nor was there any historical precedent for this new doctrine.



This letter was quoted by Vatican II which established that any baptized Christian is already in relationship with the mystical Church.
Lionel:
Due to Marchetti's error being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are mentioned in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) when this is really superflous to the orthodox passages in AG 7 and LG 14. They are not linked to the dogma.


And it is interesting that the term 'ignorance' used by Feeney against non-Catholic Christians is turned on him.
Lionel:
Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. All means all.We do not know of any one saved in invincible ignorance and without 'faith and baptism' in 2015. So Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct.

PolicyWonk> Rodrigo BC •5 days ago
It is a very serious issue to make any kind of personal judgement on the salvation of souls.
Lionel:
The Catholic Church says, based on  John 3:5 and Mark 16:16, that outside the Church there is no salvation. Non Catholics and non Christians are on the way to Hell. This is a de fide teaching.It is magisterial.

It is a matter of potential ex-communication, heresy, and outright defiance to the authority of the Church.The letter from the Holy Office, authorized by the Pope, was written in August of 1949 as a clarification of church teaching on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and quotes Pope Pius the X. The letter can be found easily online....
Lionel:
The first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 supports Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine. The second part contradicts the first part.The second part of the Letter also contradicts other magisterial documents including the  defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.


It stipulates that obedience to the teaching authority of the Magisterium on this issue is a matter of salvation.
Lionel:
The second part of the Letter contradicts the pre-1949 magisterium. No  pre 1949 document claimed there were known apparitions which were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Feeny was ex-communicated for disobeying the teaching of the Church on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
Lionel.
He was refusing to say that he could see apparitions which were exceptions to the dogma while the Holy Office and the Archbishop of Boston were  suggesting that they could see these apparitions.It seems Fr.Leonard Feeney was rational and faithful to the magisterium(pre-1949).

However, this letter was written as a clarification on Church teaching due to the controversy Feeny caused. Quite simply, to say that Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus means non-Catholic Christians are headed to hell is deemed heresy, a matter of salvation for those who chose to misconstrue the teaching of the Church. For Feeny it meant ex-communication (yes, he repented). How could the Church be more clear?
Lionel:
The confusion in the Letter of the Holy Office was picked up by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257). It says all need the baptism of water to go to Heaven and also says all do not need it since God is not limited to the Sacraments. Defacto everyone needs to enter the Church and defacto every one does not need to do so.


Also, the Church, is the only body that can dictate doctrine, and further, the meaning of doctrine.
Lionel:
No one should suggest that we humans can see apparitions and then conclude that these apparitions are known exceptions to the Feeneyite traditional interpretation of the dogma.


What I'm sensing is this site is just SSPX in disguise.
Lionel:
You are correct in observing that Church Militant is using the liberal theology also accepted by the SSPX on this issue. They both will support the dogma. Then they will suggest that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are known exceptions to the dogma.
This is how they also interpret Vatican Council II. There is a rational choice but for some reason they have not accepted it yet
.

"I'm in submission until I decide on what the teaching I place my imprimatur." On the matter of salvation of souls it is NEVER a private judgment. (see letter)
Lionel:
The second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is a private judgement now accepted by the contemporary magisterium negating the pre-1949 magisterum. It is heretical and irrational. It uses the dead-man walking theology. It is based on seeing apparitions in real life in the present times.It is not Catholic.


See Cardinal Newman on the history of the development of doctrine for a primer. Later teaching clarifies earlier teaching. Otherwise you would have absolute chaos and doctrine would become meaningless.
Lionel:
Cardinal Newman said that a dogma could develop before it is defined and not after it is defined. For Cardinals Marchetti and Cushing the dogma has developed after 1949 and after it was defined.



Lionel L. Andrades

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

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