Monday, September 16, 2013

There is no ambiguity in Lumen Gentium 14 or Ad Gentes 7

Harvesting the Fruit of the Vatican II

(1:00.19) Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.-Louie Verrecchio quotes Lumen Gentium 14.
 
This passage interpreted with Feeneyism is in agreement with Tradition and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This passage interpreted with Cushingism is a break with Tradition and causes ambiguity.
So it is the interpretation, one of the two, which determines if the Council is ambigous or not on the issue of other religions and Christian communities.
 
VATICAN COUNCIL II
 
14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart."(12*) All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.-
 
 
Lumen Gentium 14,Vatican Council II
____________________________________________________

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel...-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II

FEENEYISM: The orange text does not contradict the text in yellow since the cases referred to are defacto not known to us, personally .We do not know and cannot know these cases. So they are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

CUSHINGISM: The orange text contradicts the text in yellow .It is assumed that these cases are known to us in the present times. We can see the dead who are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
-Lionel Andrades
 
 
 
 






 
 

Official and Un-official teaching of the Catholic Church:Congregation for Institutes of Religious Life and Societies of Apostolic Life ,Vatican is useing the unoffical, irrational one

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/08/official-and-un-official-teaching-of.html

OFFICIAL TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THIS : ACCORDING TO MAGISTERIAL TEXTS ONLY

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/07/official-teaching-of-catholic-church-is.html
 

THE OFFICIAL TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THIS

Michael Voris, Louie Verrechio using Cushingism instead of Feeneyism to analyse Vatican Council II

Michael Voris quotes Cardinal Walter Kaspar on ambigous statements(1) being there in Vatican Council. There is the text of the majority along with new definitions it is said.However in looking at this text superficially, Michael Voris and Louie Verrechio are both using the Cushing interpretation of Vatican Council II.
They are assuming that in principle statements, acceptable as probabilities,are explicitly known in the present times. Then they assume that these statements contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition.So this causes the ambiguity.
It is based on this ambiguity that we have the common liberalism of the Jesuits...
With Feeneyism as an interpretation of Vatican Council II those same statements which are there in the Council do not contradict Tradition. There is no ambiguity.
Pope Francis and Cardinal Walter Kaspar are interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism. It claims that the dead now saved with the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance, good conscience, seeds of the Word, imperfect communion with the Church, good and holy things in other religions etc are physically visible to us in 2013 and so are defacto exceptions to Tradition.
With Cushingism we have a hermenutic of rupture. With Feeneyism we have the hermeneutic of continuity.
With Cushingism we have heresy. With Feeneyism we have a continuity with the Deposit of the Faith. Visible baptism of desire is not part of the Deposit of the Faith. Invisible-for- us baptism of desire is probable,rational and acceptable.
Michael Voris and Louie Verrechio could analyse Vatican Council II with Cushingism and Feeneyism. It's simple.
-Lionel Andrades
 
1.
(10:20)

Michael Voris has never ever said that Vatican Council II is in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Lionel:
In the video Michael Voris teaches the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church.
He has also produced videos supporting outside the church there is no salvation, as I have mentioned in the report above.

However you say elsewhere that Vatican Council II is is agreement with the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So it means the Council is in agreement with the traditional teachings on other religions and ecumenism.

For Michael Voris and other traditonalists the Council is a break with the past.It is ambigous.

Similarly the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney, but when it comes to Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church they interpret it as a break with Tradition. Like Michael they assume that those saved in invincible ignorance etc are explcit for us and so are exceptions.
Similarly Simon Rafe, of ChurchMilitant TV in correspondence with me a few years back, said invincible ignorance etc are exceptions to the dogma. This is irrational.
He also said that this is what the Church teaches. Agreed this is the popular, non official teaching. However the magisterial texts do not make this claim.

Lionel:

Like Michael they assume that those saved in invincible ignorance etc are explicit for us and so are exceptions

George:

Please cite me the video or specific reference where Michael says the above quote or belief that you say he has.
Lionel:

Michael Voris has often said that Vatican Council II is a break with the past.This is a clue.
He has often said that Vatican Council II is ambigous.
Is it ambigous if you interpret it with Feeneyism instead of Cushingism ?.

He has often criticized often liberals and dissenters who Vatican Council II. He may not have been aware that they were using Cushingism and that there was a choice in the interpretation of the Council.

He has never ever said that Vatican Council II is in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Church's traditional teaching on other religions and Christian communities.

He has done programs on the New Evangelisation ignoring the two ways that all magisterial texts can be interpreted and so the Church still being traditionally ecclesiocentric in its ecclesiology according to Church documents but not according to the cardinals of the new evangelization.
I could go on...
-Lionel Andrades

From comments on the blogpost Michael Voris could show how Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism,with visible exceptions or without them, irrationally or rationally. http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/michael-voris-could-show-how-vatican.html#links


Michael Voris affirms rigorist interpretation of dogma outside the church no salvation: says there is no “anonymous Catholic”

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/michael-voris-affirms-rigorist.html
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

In Praise of Triumphalism - Mundabor

In Praise Of Triumphalism



http://mundabor.wordpress.com/

The Bishop of Rome has decided to regale us with another salvo of Jesuit nonsense, and it might be appropriate to write a word or two to avoid some Catholics to be further confused by this confused and very embarrassing man.
As an orthodox Catholic, I am “triumphalist” in the sense commonly used by Protestants, Atheists and Jesuits to belittle my orthodoxy. I believe that the Church is right, and all (tutti, tous, alle, todos) who are at variance with the Church are ipso facto wrong. I believe that the Church has the fullness of the Truth, a fullness which no one else could ever have. I boast about not only the intrinsic superiority of the Church to every other group, affiliation, community or sect, but even about the unavoidable victory of this only Church over every error, every heresy, and every abomination here on earth, one day. Further, I believe that being a Catholic is a great grace, and thank God every day that He allowed me, a wretched sinner, the grace of being born in a Catholic Country, and baptised and confirmed in the One True Faith. I pray that many others who are now outside of the Only Church may become part of it, consciously during their life or through Christ's grace in the last moment before death, because – whatever bad Popes may tell you or imply to you – outside of the Church there is no salvation. If Christ reigns, the Church does. If Christ wins, the Church must perforce triumph. If Christ is the Truth, the Way and the Life, the utter superiority of the Church founded by Him to every other whatever-it-is must follow.
Why, you will ask, do I believe all this? I believe all this because I believe in the Risen Lord; a belief without which all of the above would be pure nonsense and child's tale.
Therefore, the idea of the Bishop of Rome that the – very well spread among orthodox Catholics, because the unavoidable fruit of Catholic orthodoxy – “triumphalism” of some Catholics be an indication that they do not believe in the Risen Lord is complete and utter nonsense. We are triumphalists exactly because the Risen Lord is the Guarantor of the Church's Truth and ultimate triumph.
On the contrary, those who attack Catholic triumphalism are those whose faith in the Resurrection I openly question. If one doubts the Resurrection, and only if one does, then suddenly the talk of “why do we think we have the Truth” begins to make sense. If you believe that Jesus resurrected, then you must believe that He is God, and then His Church is the Only One and the Truth of His Bride is destined to triumph. If you have doubts that Jesus resurrected, this is when you start talking like a Jesuit.
Besides, this extremely offensive bollocks comes from one who says “who am I to judge” when questioned about the sodomites in his entourage. Go figure. Must be a Jesuit.
There. It had to be said, I think.
God is punishing us with a Jesuit Pope. I pray that He may, in His own good time, take this punishment away from us.
Mundabor


 

Another response to Eugenio Scalfari- Louie Verrechio


http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/scalfari/