Wednesday, December 13, 2017

Realizing the Narrow Gate Part I: Pope John XXIII's Paradigm Shift

This video is the first part in a series addressing the loss of the juxtaposition between good and evil in the Catholic Church. This introduction looks at the shift in thinking during the pontificate of Pope John XXIII, specifically in his opening address to the Second Vatican Council.

18 comments:

Catholic Mission said...

DECEMBER 14, 2017
No contradiction or correction from Roberto dei Mattei

There is no contradiction or correction from Roberto dei Mattei.I e-mailed him at Correspondenza Romano with this blog post. 1
I have said that Mattei will not support Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).It is confirmed that he will not.
He may say that the Church has rejected Feeneyite EENS and so he must not support it but then the Church has also accepted Vatican Councl II(Cushingite) and he criticizes Vatican Council II.
When he refers to outside the Church there is no salvation he is referring to Cushingite EENS,in which invisible for him baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are visible exceptions in the present times to traditional EENS.
This is the error of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre which is not denied by the SSPX.
I informed him that I affirm EENS and Vatican Council II Feeneyite, and he has nothing to say.He does not think that I am in heresy? Am I orthodox for him?
He knows if he affirms Feeneyite Vatican Council II(LG 16-refers to hypothetical cases only) and Feeneyite EENS( BOD, BOB and I.I are not visible and known people) then he would be saying in public that all Jews and Muslims need to enter the Church with no known exceptions in 2017 to avoid Hell.
Vatican Council II would not be a rupture with the past ecclesiology of the Church.
But he supports the FSSP and other priests when they offer the Tridentine Rite Mass with the new ecclesiology based on visible for them BOD, BOB and I.I.For them there are known people saved outside the Church.Since there are known people saved outside the Church, who are practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS, the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church is rejected.
He rejects the ecclesiology of St.Robert Bellarmine who did not state that there were personally known or physically visible cases of the BOD, BOB and I.I.Yet this is the inference of Roberto dei Mattei and he does not deny this.
His interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS with Cushingite theology results in heresy which he shares with the two popes.
I have been saying this for the last few years and he does not comment on this issue which is uncomfortable for him.
Just as believes that what is known only to God can be known also to man(BOD is visible), Pope Francis,Pope Benedict and Cardinal Muller believe that they can judge Catholics as not being in mortal sin in spite of the objective evidence to the contrary.
Cardinal Kasper has said that the controversy over Amoris Laetitia is over.A few years back he said that if every one can accept the new ecclesiology why cannot they also accept the Eucharist being given to the divorced and remarried.
Roberto dei Mattei could make a difference if announces that there are no physically visible cases of BOD,BOB and I.I in 2017 and he cannot judge and conclude that someone outside the Church, whom he knows, will be saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.Neither can he conclude that there can be known people, saved outside the Church and they are in Heaven but visible on earth to be exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.-Lionel Andrades

1.
DECEMBER 12, 2017

Neither is Roberto dei Mattei nor Maike Hickson willing to affirm the old ecclesiology of the Church with Feeneyite EENS and with such a big doctrinal and theological divide among us they are talking about the pope being in heresy
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/neither-is-roberto-dei-mattei-not-maike.html

Matthew Bellisario said...

This has nothing to do with this post. Why do you keep posting on this same issue?

Catholic Mission said...

Traditionalists are not willing to affirm the Catholic Faith. Mattei will not affirm Feeneyite EENS. Since then the interpretation of Vatican Council II will change it will not be a rupture with Tradition and he will be accused of being Anti. Semitic. He does not want to choose the narrow gate. He,like the other traditionalists, are attached to their life style,interests etc.
The pope's paradign shift with Vatican Council II was only possible since the traditionalists at that time and today were not willing to say in public that LG 16, UR 3, LG 8 etc were not visible exceptions to Feeneyite EENS and to the old ecclesiology of the Church. So Vatican Council II was not a ruputure with Tradition.
They still are not willing to state this even after being informed and there are so many reports on the Internet.
The Paradigm Shift is an illusion. If Mattei and the other traditionalists would announce that invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not visible exceptions to Feeneyite EENS and so they affirm Feeneyite EENS that will be the end of the so called paradigm shift.

DECEMBER 15, 2017
The traditionalists in general have made an error.They have made a major error in theology and doctrine.

The traditionalists in general have made an error.They have made a major error in theology and doctrine.
For Roberto dei Mattei for example invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
So he will not affirm Feeneyite EENS.
So Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition for him.If he affirmed Feeneyite EENS Vatican Council II would not be a rupture with Tradition.
He would be saying Lumen Gentium 16(LG 16) etc are not physically visible cases.SO they do not contradict the old ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
Vatican Council II does not contradict Feeneyite EENS.
-Lionel Andrades

Matthew Bellisario said...

In the context that I am referring, the paradigm shift is real. I am not discussing this topic on this post.

Catholic Mission said...

Yes the paradigm shift is real since the whole Church interpreted Vatican Council II with a false premise and so there was a non traditional conclusion.But this is not the work of the Holy Spirit but of human error.
Even the traditionalists wrongly believed that Vatican Council II was a rupture with Tradition.They still repeat the same thing.
So we know the results.
Pope John XXIII did not affirm Feeneyite EENS. It was the same with Pope Paul VI.
Now we know their error and so can interpret Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) in harmony with Tradition. We side step the paradimn shift.I do not deny that it exists in the Church after Vatican Council II.
There will not be a paradigm shift today for the German bishops for example, if they realized that LG 16 etc refer to hypothetical cases and so Vatican Council II does not contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
They are not going to affirm the old exclusivist ecclesiology. They need the paradigm shift based on the false premise and conclusion.


DECEMBER 15, 2017
These errors in doctrine come about because of the rejection of Feeneyite EENS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/these-errors-in-doctrine-come-about.html

Matthew Bellisario said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matthew Bellisario said...

The Holy Innocents are a perfect example of Baptism by Blood. It is a reality. That however does not mean that we do not need to convert anyone.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Also, no offense Catholic Mission, but your blog articles are impossible to read. Its like one run on sentence with no punctuation or separation of paragraphs. If you want someone to read and comment on your writings they have to be legible.

Catholic Mission said...

The Holy Innocents are a perfect example of Baptism by Blood. It is a reality. That however does not mean that we do not need to convert anyone.

Lionel:
Yes the Holy Innocents are a real but they do not exist in 2017-2018.For there to be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus today there would have to be an exception today.

Someone in the past cannot be an exception to all needing to enter the Church for salvation in 2017. Do you agree with me?
____________________________


If the Good Thief on the Cross was saved without the baptism of water we must remember that there is no such concrete case known to us today. So this cannot be an exception.
A possibility in the past is not a concrete case in the present (2017).
_____________________________

Would you agree ?

Catholic Mission said...


Also, no offense Catholic Mission, but your blog articles are impossible to read. Its like one run on sentence with no punctuation or separation of paragraphs. If you want someone to read and comment on your writings they have to be legible.

Lionel:
Matthew, in this blog post there are the terms explained and there are graphics which could be helpful.

DECEMBER 1, 2017
The lex orandi lex credendi of Catholics today is based on irrational Cushingite theology.The Feeneyite alternative is ignored by all.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/the-lex-orandi-lex-credendi-of_1.html

Matthew Bellisario said...

No I do not agree. The fact that we have concrete cases in history makes it a reality. Since when do you have to play God and know who He chooses to save through Baptism by Blood? It is very simple, either you believe the teaching is a reality or you do not. We know that it is because it is defined by the Church as a reality. Again, this does not imply any way shape or form that we do not need to convert anyone. And your blog posts are impossible to read, please reformat it so you actually have a legible article.

Matthew Bellisario said...

What you say makes absolutely no sense. "Someone in the past cannot be an exception to all needing to enter the Church for salvation in 2017." Who claims this to be the case? No one is saying that these exceptions mean no one has to convert. No one is saying that this is an escape clause for everyone outside the Church. The fact is, there are many examples in Church history where we have Saints that are included in the Church's Martyrology who were Saints through Baptism by blood. That is a fact. So it is a possibility today, period. Its like saying the apostles did great miracles, since we don't see the same types of miracles happening today in New York City, we don't believe in miracles exercised through Christ's successors anymore. Nor are we saying that these miracles must happen on a daily basis. So likewise no one is saying that everyone gets a free pass in Baptism by Blood. We are simply saying it is a possibility that it can happen today. Are you going to deny all of the Saints who are in the Martyrology via Baptism by Blood, and deny it cannot happen today? Is that your argument?

From the Roman Martyrology: "Saint Victor: At Braga in Portugal, of Saint Victor, Martyr, who while still a catechumen refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy; wherefore after many torments, he merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut off. Victor of Braga Martyr (Red Martyr): Died c. 300. In his chronicle, Vasaeus records that Saint Victor was baptized by blood. The catechumen was beheaded at Braga, Portugal, under Diocletian for refusing to sacrifice to idols (Benedictines, Husenbeth)

Maximianus in 303 or 308. Feast, 25 Aug, He was captured and executed, and received baptism in his own blood.

Do you also reject all of the Church Fathers and Saints such as Aquinas who clearly state it is a very real possibility?

Aquinas, "a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's
Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apoc. 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance."

In summary, no one that I know of even most of the heretics in the Church are claiming as you say as you say that it is, "exception to all needing to enter the Church for salvation." The Church teaches that Baptism by Blood is a possibility today as it has been since the coming of Christ. We have concrete examples in the history of the Church.

Catholic Mission said...

In summary, no one that I know of even most of the heretics in the Church are claiming as you say as you say that it is, "exception to all needing to enter the Church for salvation." The Church teaches that Baptism by Blood is a possibility today as it has been since the coming of Christ. We have concrete examples in the history of the Church.

Lionel: I affirm Feeneyite EENS. It is there in a few thousand blog posts.For me invisible baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are not exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
When Pope Benedict in March 2016 in the Avvenire interview said that EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century and there was 'a development' with Vatican Council II and, that with known salvation outside the Church(due to the exceptions) why was there a need for mission, he was repeating that there were exceptions to EENS for him.
Similarly for the SSPX, according to their website BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS.Not for me.
For Wikipedia(see extra ecclesiam nulla salus) LG 16 in Vatican Council II is an exception to EENS. Not for me.
For the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston, BOD, BOB and I.I were exceptions to EENS. They were not exceptions for Fr. Leonard Feeney.
They were not exceptions for St.Thomas Aquinas.
Are they exceptions for you?

Catholic Mission said...

From the Roman Martyrology: "Saint Victor...

Maximianus in 303 ...

Do you also reject all of the Church Fathers and Saints such as Aquinas who clearly state it is a very real possibility?
Lionel:
I accept them as a possibility.The baptism of desire can only be accepted as a possibility. For us human beings it cannot be a known case. So St. Victor is a possibility. No one could have seen in Heaven without the baptism of water or with it.
So since it is a possibility and not a known person saved outside the Church in the present times, it is not an exception to the dogma EEN, I do not have to reject it.
I am not a traditionalist who rejects the baptism of desire.
People send me long lists of baptism of desire references and I ask them what has this to do with the dogma EENS. Since no where is mentioned that these are references to known people in the present reality. So they have nothing to do with EENS.
They agree that they do not know any one saved with the baptism of desire during their life time.So they should not have been sending me these baptisms of desire references as if they could be exceptions to EENS.
______________________________

Catholic Mission said...

What you say makes absolutely no sense. "Someone in the past cannot be an exception to all needing to enter the Church for salvation in 2017." Who claims this to be the case?
Lionel.
Then why do you mention all these baptism of desire cases?
Why do you mention possibilities of the past as relevant to EENS?

Catholic Mission said...

The fact is, there are many examples in Church history where we have Saints that are included in the Church's Martyrology who were Saints through Baptism by blood. That is a fact.
Lionel: It is a fact that they have been mentioned in the Martyrology.
Is it a fact that someone on earth saw them in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
Did some one on earth know this for sure, as a fact?
Does the Church recognise that there are people in the Church who can tell when a person is saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water? Of course not.
So that it is mentioned in the Martyrology it does not mean that it is a confirmed fact that they are there in Heaven, without the baptism of water.
I accept St. Victor and St. Emerentiana as saints and I believe that God would have provided them with what is necessary for salvation. This was what St. Thomas Aquinas said. He said that the man in the forest in invincible ignorance could be saved. Since God would send a preacher to him. So when he is in Heaven he would be baptised and would know the faith, in a way God made it possible.

Catholic Mission said...

So likewise no one is saying that everyone gets a free pass in Baptism by Blood. We are simply saying it is a possibility that it can happen today. Are you going to deny all of the Saints who are in the Martyrology via Baptism by Blood, and deny it cannot happen today? Is that your argument?
Lionel:
My argument is that those who are mentioned in the Martyrology are known only to God. They can be known only to God.So since they cannot be kmown to us human beings they cannot be exceptions to EENS.
If it happened today we would not know about it. So it cannot be still be said that there are exceptions to EENS. The baptism of desire and blood are simply theoretical concepts and not exceptions to EENS.

Catholic Mission said...

The fact that we have concrete cases in history makes it a reality. Since when do you have to play God and know who He chooses to save through Baptism by Blood? It is very simple, either you believe the teaching is a reality or you do not. We know that it is because it is defined by the Church as a reality.

'The fact that we have concrete cases in history makes it a reality.'
Lionel:
We have speculative and theoretical cases. In faith we accept them as saints. In faith we cannot reject the dogma EENS and assume that they are exceptions to the dogmatic teaching.

'Since when do you have to play God and know who He chooses to save through Baptism by Blood?'
Lionel:
I affirm the dogma EENS which says there are no exceptions. I do not know of any practical exceptions to EENS. Even if there was someone saved with the baptism of desire this year I would not know. So I cannot say that one person or many people were saved with the baptism of desire this year.

'It is very simple, either you believe the teaching is a reality or you do not. We know that it is because it is defined by the Church as a reality.'
Lionel:
EENS is a de fide teaching. The baptism of desire is not.However I do not reject the baptism of desire since it can only be a hypothetical case for us human beings and actual cases can only be known to God. So it is irrelevant to EENS, for me.