However theologically there is no clarification from Church Militant TV(CMTV).Since for CMTV the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This was the view in an otherwise good Mic'd Up program on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus hosted by Christine Niles,with Michael Voris commenting from Rome.
CMTV accepts the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which says the baptism of desire etc,allegedly without the baptism of water, are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS, expressed well by Michael Voris here on this Vortex.
Michael has in the past however also said that 'every one does not need to be a card carrying member of the Church'. Simon Rafe also supports this theological position of Michael Voris which is that of the liberals and traditionalists.
It is part of the new theology, based on a false premise, which makes the new theology contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
It is this new theology which is part of the CMTV interpretation of Vatican Council II.
So Vatican Council II would say for the CMTV team that all need to enter the Church (AG 7, LG 14) but some do not need to do so (LG 16. LG 14).Here LG 16, LG 14,for CMTV, refer to explicit cases based on the false premise.
This would not be how I would interpret Vatican Council II. LG 16 and LG 14 would refer to hypothetical cases. So it would not be an exception to Michael Voris' understanding of salvation, as expressed clearly and directly in this Vortex.
So the Catechism of the Catholic Church for CMTV would say all need the baptism of water for salvation(CCC 1257) and it would also say contradictorilythat God is not limited to the Sacraments, and so all do not need the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.This is an expression of the new theology.
For me CCC 1257 would not contradict itself as it does for CMTV, since we do not know any case in 2016 or in the past, of someone saved without the baptism of water because God is not limited to the Sacraments. So 'God is not limited to the Sacraments',for me, does not contradict Michael's clear presentation of Catholic salvation in this Vortex.
This new theology on salvation has a direct bearing on the liturgy.It influences are lex orandi, lex credendi and lex vivendi which Christine Niles mentioned on the last Friday Download.It was on the Sacred Liturgy and Cardinal Sarah's comments on the priest facing East and all communicants needing to kneel. THEOLOGICAL CLARIFICATION NEEDED
Could CMTV theologically say that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire or blood, and being saved in invincible ignorance, in 2016,with or without the baptism of water?
Also that there could be no such known case in the past for us human beings?
When the saints and the popes referred to the baptism of desire etc they were referring to invisible- for- them baptism of desire.There were no objective cases, seen in the flesh?
So the baptism of desire etc being invisible and not known in personal cases is not, and was not, an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
It means that the magisterium made a mistake in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 when it assumed hypothetical cases, are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Also mentioning these cases in Vatican Council II was a mistake.They are superfluous passages.
-Lionel Andrades
JULY 11, 2016
The Download—Restoring the Liturgy ( Why cannot this be lex credendi, lex orandi,lex vivendi for CMTV?)
Cardinal Sarah is saying that when you pray and believe during Mass interpret Vatican Council II with a theology which violates the Principle of Non Contradiction and so creates ' a new faith' I mentioned in a previous blog post.
He is saying accept the error in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in its text,since Vatican Council II does so.
He means in principle accept that hypothetical cases could be known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS),since Vatican Council II has done so.
So it is ' a new faith' for Catholics during Mass since the 1950's.
THE METHOD,HOW IT WAS DONE
This is the way he approves ' a new faith' during Mass in all the rites.
He first starts with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,which is a foundational dogma for other doctrines of the Catholic Church.
He assumes there are known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, all needing faith and the baptism of water.He means there are objective cases of persons who are saved,who did not need faith and baptism in the Catholic Church.
This is the innovation. This is the new premise which he brings into the Church.
So there is lex orandi, lex credendi and lex vivendi with the use of this irrational premise.There is a new theology, based on this irrationality.It is a violation of the Principle of Non Contradiction.
He has a new theology which says every one needs to enter the Church but some people do not.He affirms the dogma EENS ,which does not mention any exceptions, and he also alleges that there are exceptions.
It is only be supposing that there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS, (even though there cannot be known cases of people saved without the baptism of waterin the Church) that he is able to present exceptions to the defined dogma which does not mention any exceptions.
VIOLATES PRINCIPLE OF NON CONTRADICTION
So he will point out to Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 on extra ecclesam nulla salus, which is a defined dogma, and he will claim that he believes in it. At the same time he will allege that since there are known exceptions to the dogma; since there are known cases of non persons saved outside the Church, every one does not need to enter the Church.This is contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction. How can it be said all need to enter but some do not.
NEW THEOLOGY BASED ON NEW PREMISE
It is with this new theology that he interprets Vatican Council II, as does Church Militant TV, the Latin Mass Society, Fr.Serafino Lanzetta F.I and the Franciscans of the Immaculate,the Remnant and Wanderer newspaper staff, the New Catechumenale Way and the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the two popes.
This new theology is based on philosophical subjectivism i.e we can allegedly see and know personal cases of the baptism of desire and blood or being saved in invincible ignorance all without the baptism of water.This was the deadly premise which derailed traditional theology in the Catholic Church.
PREMISE IS FALSE
The premise is false.Since objectively we cannot judge or know who will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.There are is no such case,in the past or present. We physically cannot meet any one as such on the streets. We cannot see any such person in 2016 with the naked eye. If such a case exists it would only be known to God.
So once this premise was accepted by the magisterium in the 1949 Fr. Leonard Feeney Case, it created a new salvation theology for the Church. This new salvation theology says there are objecive, personally known exceptions to the traditional understanding of EENS.So all do not need to enter the Church. So the 16th century missionaries salvation theology had become obsolete.
It was is this fantasy theology,being able to see people in Heaven without the baptism of water, which violated the Principle of Non Contradiction and the Council Fathers accepted during Vatican Council II.The magisterium did not object.
MISTAKE IN COUNCIL TEXT
So Vatican Council II mentions being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16) or the desire for the baptism of water of a hypothetical case of a catechumen(LG 14) based on the false premise of there being known cases of persons in these two categories.This was a mistake in the text of Vatican Council.
MISTAKE ALSO IN INTERPRETATION
There would be a further mistake in the interpretation, when Cardinal Sarah and every body else, assumes that LG 14( catechumen with a desire for the baptism of water) and LG 16( someone saved in invincible ignorance) refer to known cases in the present times, and so they are exceptions to the dogma EENS and the old ecclesiology.
So cardinal Sarah would interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma EENS and the old ecclesiology.Every one would not need to enter the Church for salvation.It is with this theology that there is a lex orandi, lex credendi and lex vivendi.
NEW FAITH WITH NEW PREMISE
Based on the new premise, which contradicts our understanding of reality( we humans in general cannot see people in Heaven) we now have ' a new faith' during Holy Mass.The Nicene Creed which says, 'I believe in one baptism( known) for the forgiveness of sins' now means 'I believe in three or more baptisms, without water.'They are the baptism of desire and blood, being saved in invincible ignorance, seeds of the Word (AG 11) etc'.The Athanasius Creed which begins and ends saying outside the Church there is no salvation,was put away with the new premise.
So when Cardinal Sarah says that the priest should face the East and communicants must kneel, he means this must be done at Mass where the priest and congregation,interpret Vatican Council II with a new theology which violates the Principle of Non Contradiction and so creates ' a new faith'.
-Lionel Andrades
Cardinal Sarah is saying that when you pray and believe during Mass interpret Vatican Council II with a theology which violates the Principle of Non Contradiction and so creates ' a new faith' http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/cardinal-sarah-is-saying-that-when-you.html
Father Lombardi: Cardinal Sarah's Ad Orientem Suggestion 'Misinterpreted'
There are some miserable men - let us rather say, fools - who, in the delirium of their iniquity, make bold to declare that they laugh at hell. They say so, but only with their lips; their consciences protest and give them the lie.
Jean-Marie Collot d'Herbois
Jean-Marie Collot d'Herbois,
famous for his impiety as much as for is sanguinary ferocity, was the chief author of the massacres of Lyons in 1793; he caused the destruction of at least 1,600 individuals. Six years after, in 1799, he was banished to Cayenne, and used to give vent to his infernal rage by blaspheming the holiest things. The least act of religion became the subject of his jests. Having seen a soldier make the sign of the cross, "Imbecile!" he said to him. "You still believe in superstition! Do you not know that God, the Holy Virgin, Paradise, Hell, are the inventions of the accursed tribe of priests?" Shortly after, he fell sick and was seized by violent pains. In an access of fever he swallowed, at a single draught, a bottle of liquor. His disease increased; he felt as if burned by a fire that was devouring his bowels. He uttered frightful shrieks, called upon God, the Holy Virgin, a priest, to come to his relief. "Well, indeed," said the soldier to him, "you ask for a priest? You fear hell then? You used to curse the priests, make fun of hell! Alas!" He then answered: "My tongue was lying to my heart." Pretty soon, he expired, vomiting blood and foam.
The following incident happened in 1837. A young under-lieutenant, being in Paris, entered the Church of the Assumption, near the Toilers, and saw a priest kneeling near a confessional. As he made religion the habitual subject of his jokes, he wished to go to confession to while away the time, and went into the confessional. "Monsieur l'abbé," he said, "would you be good enough to hear my confession?" "Willingly my son; confess unrestrained." "But I must first say that I am a rather unique kind of a sinner." "No matter; the sacrament of penance has been instituted for all sinners." "But I am not very much of a believer in religious matters." "You believe more than you think." "Believe? I? I am a regular scoffer." The confessor saw with whom he had to deal, and that there was some mystification. He replied, smiling: "You are a regular scoffer? Are you then making fun of me, too?" The pretended penitent smiled in like manner. "Listen," the priest went on, "what you have just done here is not serious. Let us leave confession aside; and, if you please, have a little chat. I like military people greatly; and, then, you have the appearance of a good, amiable youth. Tell me, what is your rank?" "Under-lieutenant." "Will you remain an under-lieutenant long?" "Two, three, perhaps four years." "And after?" "I shall hope to become a lieutenant?" "And after?" "I hope to become a captain." "And after?" "Lieutenant-colonel?" "How old will you be then?" "Forty to forty-five years." "And after that?" "I shall become a brigadier general." "And after?" "If I rise higher, I shall be general of a division." "And after?" "After! there is nothing more except the Marshal's baton; but my pretensions do not reach so high." "Well and good. But do you intend to get married?" "Yes, when I shall be a superior officer." "Well! There you are married; a superior officer, a general, perhaps even a French marshal, who knows? And after?" "After? Upon my word, I do not know what will be after."
"See, how strange it is!" said the abbé. Then, in a tone of voice that grew more sober: "You know all that shall happen up to that point, and you do not know what will be after. Well, I know, and I am going to tell you. After, you shall die, be judged, and, if you continue to live as you do, you shall be damned, you shall go and burn in hell; that is what will be after."
As the under-lieutenant, dispirited at this conclusion, seemed anxious to steal away: "One moment, sir," said the abbé. "You are a man of honor. So am I. Agree that you have offended me, and owe me an apology. It will be simple. For eight days, before retiring to rest, you will say: 'One day I shall die; but I laugh at the idea. After my death I shall be judged; but I laugh at the idea. After my judgment, I shall be damned; but I laugh at the idea. I shall burn forever in hell; but I laugh at the idea!' That is all. But you are going to give me your word of honor not to neglect it, eh?" More and more wearied, and wishing, at any price, to extricate himself from this false step, the under-lieutenant made the promise. In the evening, his word being given, he began to carry out his promise. "I shall die," he says. "I shall be judged." He had not the courage to add: "I laugh at the idea." The week had not passed before he returned to the Church of the Assumption, made his confession seriously, and came out of the confessional his face bathed with tears, and with joy in his heart.
A young person who had become an unbeliever in consequence of her dissipation, kept incessantly shooting sarcasm at religion, and making jests of its most awful truths. "Juliette," some one said to her one day, "this will end badly. God will be tired of your blasphemies, and you shall be punished." "Bah," she answered insolently. "It gives me very little trouble. Who has returned from the other world to relate what passes there?" Less than eight days after she was found in her room, giving no sign of life, and already cold. As there was no doubt that she was dead, she was put in a coffin and buried. The following day, the grave-digger, digging a new grave beside that of the unhappy Juliette, heard some noise, it seemed to him that there was a knocking in the adjoining coffin. At once, he puts his ear to the ground, and in fact hears a smothered voice, crying out: "Help! help!" The authorities were summoned; by their orders, the grave was opened, the coffin taken up and unnailed. The shroud is removed; there is no further doubt, Juliette was buried alive. Her hair, her shroud were in disorder, and her face was streaming with blood. While they are releasing her, and feeling her heart to be assured that it still beats, she heaves a sigh, like a person for a long time deprived of air; then she opens her eyes, makes an effort to lift herself up, and says: "My God, I thank thee." Afterward, when she had got her senses well back, and by the aid of some food, recovered her strength, she added: "When I regained consciousness in the grave and recognized the frightful reality of my burial, when after having uttered shrieks, I endeavored to break my coffin, and struck my forehead against the boards, I saw that all was useless; death appeared to me with all its horrors; it was less the bodily than the eternal death that frightened me. I saw I was going to be damned. My God, I had but too well deserved it! Then I prayed, I shouted for help, I lost consciousness again, until I awoke above ground. O, goodness of my God!" she said, again shedding tears, "I had despised the truths of faith; thou hast punished me, but in thy mercy, I am converted and repentant."
They who deny hell will be
forced to admit it soon; but
alas! it will be too late.
[The following video contains a Lenten retreat sermon
delivered by a traditional Catholic priest on the subject
(8:26) He ( Cardinal Sarah) is not saying junk Vatican Council II- Bradley Eli, Church Militant TV.
Lionel: Cardinal Sarah is saying that when you pray and believe during Mass interpret Vatican Council II with a theology which violates the Principle of Non Contradiction amd so creates ' a new faith'.
He is saying accept the error in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in its text,since Vatican Council II does so.
He is saying that in principle accept that hypothetical cases could be known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS),since Vatican Council II has done so.
He is saying assume that those saved in invincible ignorance refer to explicit cases saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church (Letter of the Holy Office 1949). So Lumen Gentium 14 tells us only those persons need to enter the Church for salvation, who know about the Jesus and the Church.In other words who are not in invincible ignorance.Here we have a non traditional conclusion in Vatican Council II based on an irrational premise.The Council Fathers erred.This is how Cardinal Sarah wants us to interpret Vatican Council II at Mass, even though there is a rational and traditional choice.
He is not saying the lay man should receive the Eucharist on his knees and the priest should face east during the Mass and affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS in line with Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.
He is not saying to reject the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and accept only the first part, since the Council Fathers and the magisterium in Rome since the 1949 had made a mistake.
He is not saying that assume hypothetical cases are just hypothetical.Do not make the mistake of the Council Fathers who assumed hypothetical cases were explicit. So they concluded that there was salvation outside the Church.
Cardinal Sarah did not say that a Catholic's ecclesiology during Mass , should be Feeneyite and not Cushingite.
He is not saying that Vatican Council II has erred.It overlooked a factual error and then built a fantasy theology upon it, to reject Tradition.The objective error indicates that this cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit.The Council with the Cushingite theology is the work of human error and it has changed the understanding of the people during Mass, on what does the Catholic Church still teach.
6:22. Lex orandi, Lex credendi, Lex vivendi.The law of prayer is the law of belief the law of life.How you pray,and Mass is the highest form of prayer, affects how you believe which affects how you live.It has a profound effect..-Christine Niles
At the Church Militant TV chapel they kneel and receive the Eucharist with reverance on the tongue and theologically they know that outside the Catholic Church; outside its visible and formal structure,there is known salvation.Every one does not need to be a card carrying member of the Church,said Michael Voris on a CMTV program. The baptism of desire refers to explicit cases in 2016 and so it is an exception theologically to all needing to enter the Church. Every one does not need to visibly enter the Church, according to Michael Voris, as they visibly entered the Ark of Noah to be saved from the deluge.
With the 'new faith' when you pray at Mass, know that every Protestant or atheist does not need to be a Catholic.Since there are 'known' cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance etc.May be you can bump into them on the streets of Detroits.Membership in the Catholic Church is not necessary.This seems like the law of belief is the law of prayer and how you live and proclaim the Faith on CMTV and other places. We now have the Anonymous Christian theology at CMTV.It is the approved faith, the approved liberal belief-system at the Traditional Latin Mass or Mass in the vernacular.
When the SSPX accepts this 'new faith', this new law of belief, as they do at CMTV, they will be allowed to offer the Latin Mass with canonical status.But if they accept Vatican Council II with Feeneyism(theologically there are no explicit exceptions to EENS in 2016), they would be ideological.So there will be no canonical status.
There are traditionalists who are not ideological.The St. Benedict Center, Still River,M.A,USA is the community of Fr. Leonard Feeney, in the diocese of Worcester,USA.They have full canonical status.This Catholic religious community, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, vaguely accepts and also criticizes Vatican Council II.Michael Voris and CMTV does the same.They interpret LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc with the Cushingite irrationality i.e theologically invisible cases are visible, since his is the law life and nature, practically, in real life for them. What is implicit must be considered explicit.The magisterium wants the SSPX to also interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism( which they are already doing) and to accept this interpretation( which they are not doing).CMTV is meeting all these liberal standards of Lex Credendi, Lex Orandi, Lex Vivendi( in this order).
No Catholic community, according to the Vatican and the Jewish Left rabbis, can affirm Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.Michael Voris does not dare do so.
Feeneyism( there are no explicit exceptions to EENS, nothing in Vatican Council II can contradict EENS) supports the traditional ecclesiology, the 'triumphalistic ecclesiology'.Even with the triumphalistic ecclesiology there can be a lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi.
This ecclesiology is rational.Yet No priest who offers the TLM or the Novus Ordo Mass is opposing Cushingism and supporting Feeneyism in public- not even priests of the SSPX.Not even the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St. Benedict Centers.Nor the CMTV Download. LEX CREDENDI FOR ME When I attend Holy Mass common sense tells me that there cannot be known salvation outside the Church.I cannot see someone saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water.I cannot meet someone who is going to be saved in invincible ignorance and without Catholic faith.This is something obvious.So when I pray during Mass I know, I must pray for all non-Catholics who are oriented to Hell.They need to enter the Church with physically visible baptism of water and Catholic teachings which can be learnt and checked visibly. This is my idea of 'Church', when I attend Mass.It is based on the Bible and the traditional interpretations of John 3:5, Mark 16:16, Matt.7:13-14 etc.
Why cannot this be lex credendi, lex orandi,lex vivendi for CMTV?I know most people are oriented to the fires of Hell for all time, since they did not accept the mercy of God, by entering or remaining in the Catholic Church.They need to enter the only Church of God.They must follow the traditional teachings.They must reject innovations including new theologies.1
-Lionel Andrades
1.
Vatican Curia wants the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II as does the St.Benedict Center,Still River in the diocese of Worcester,USA
Fr.Lanzetta and Joseph Shaw need to correct themself and then they will have a new perspective on the Council. When they assume there are exceptions to the dogma EENS, as does the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, they infer that there are personally known people in the present times ( 2016) who are practical exceptions to the dogma EENS and the old ecclesiology.So they are saying that every one needs to enter the Church but some people do not. Every one needs to be a Catholic for salvation, since this is the dogmatic teaching of Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) and EENS but some people do not(like those in invincible ignorance etc).This is contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction. The new theology violates the Principle of Non Contradiction. This can be seen in the Letter(1949) where the second part of the Letter is Cushingite and contradicts the first part ( Feeneyite). It can can be seen in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation but some do not ( invincible ignorance etc).
HOLY SPIRIT TEACH ERROR? There are passages in Vatican Council II which are orthodox on salvation and these passages are followed by ambigous passages based on Cushingism and the new theology.So we now have 'a new faith', based on a violation of simple reasoning and philosophy.It contradicts Aristotles Principle of Non Contradiction.It has been approved in Vatican Council II.How can this error be the teaching of the Holy Spirit?1 -Lionel Andrades
1.
July 10, 2016
Fr.Serafino Lanzetta and Dr.Joseph Shaw contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction with an irrational premise - 5
This is the first Council which has erred on such a grand scale.They overlooked a factual error and then built a whole new fantasy theology upon it, to reject Tradition.The objective error indicates that this cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit.The Council with the Cushingite theology is the work of human error or even diabolical intervention.
ERROR IN VATICAN COUNCIL II
1.The Second Vatican Council II has erred when it accepted the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in its text.
2.It has erred when in principle it accepted that hypothetical cases could be known exceptions to the dogma EENS.
3.It has erred when it assumed that those saved in invincible ignorance refer to explicit cases,known persons saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church (Letter of the Holy Office 1949). So Lumen Gentium 14 says only those persons need to enter the Church for salvation, to avoid Hell, who know about the Jesus and the Church.In other words who are not in invincible ignorance.Here we have a non traditional conclusion in Vatican Council II based on an irrational premise.The Council Fathers erred.
They also rejected the dogma EENS which says all need to enter the Church. They have also contradicted Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation. AG 7 does not say there are exceptions when it refers to all.