Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Fatima Event Live on EWTN

What a magnificent opportunity!


Anonymous said...

Our Lady at Fatima said that the dogma of the faith will be lost (except in Portugal)
She could have been talking about the dogma EENS.

Christine Niles misses the elephant in the living room

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.


Anonymous said...


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