"Rebuilding Christendom" Conference, August 24-26
Latest News
Thursday, 12 April 2012 10:09
10 Comments
Click here to read flyer about conference.
Comments
0
#10
2012-08-27 09:39
I've never quite understood how "invincibly ignorant" or "baptism of desire/blood" could ever apply to heretics. Too, what does that say about our omnipotent God ... e.g., that He is incapable of sending one of His own intermediaries to those "invincibly ignorant" or who have a desire to join the True Church? It seems to me that this dogma has been watered down so as not to *offend* heretics. Anyone who finds Truth offensive is on the wrong side. God turns a deaf ear to the unrepentant.
0
#9
2012-08-25 14:55
Do John Vennari,Doug Bersaw, Gary Potter, John Sharpe and others under stand that being saved in invincible ignorance and implicit desire are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
So even if John Vennari,Doug Bersaw, Gary Potter, John Sharpe and the others are not indifferentists and and even affirm the traditional interpretation of the dogma and the Syllabus do they assume that Vatican Counciil II is a traditional Council with traditional values on other religions , ecumenism and religious liberty ?
Does Robert Sungenis consider LG 16 an exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation?
None of the speakers at the Rebuilding Christiandom Conference (1) to be held this week in Washington have ever said that Vatican Council II is in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Catholic Tradition.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/08/do-john-vennaridoug-bersaw-gary-potter.html#links
Do John Vennari,Doug Bersaw, Gary Potter, John Sharpe and others under stand that being saved in invincible ignorance and implicit desire are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
So even if John Vennari,Doug Bersaw, Gary Potter, John Sharpe and the others are not indifferentists and and even affirm the traditional interpretation of the dogma and the Syllabus do they assume that Vatican Counciil II is a traditional Council with traditional values on other religions , ecumenism and religious liberty ?
Does Robert Sungenis consider LG 16 an exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation?
None of the speakers at the Rebuilding Christiandom Conference (1) to be held this week in Washington have ever said that Vatican Council II is in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Catholic Tradition.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/08/do-john-vennaridoug-bersaw-gary-potter.html#links
0
#8
2012-06-12 09:19
continued
According to Vatican Council II, the dogma on salvation, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other magisterial documents the Anglican Archbishop of Dublin who addressed the conference is oriented to Hell unless he converts into the Catholic Church.
The Theology Section of the Conference features an Ecclesiology of Communion. It is assumed that the Church no more teaches exclusive ecclesiocentris m since those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desie are explicit exceptions to the dogma.- and of course in Ireland they know these explicit cases in real life for them to be exceptions to the dogma.
Traditionalists in Ireland and elsewhere do not object to this ecclesiology since they too are (seemingly ?!) familiar with visible cases of the baptism of desire and they know people on earth, may be in Dublin, saved in invincible ignorance on earth and in Heaven.
A leader of the Catholic Focolare Movement gave her testimony on this ecclesiology and why Christian communities do not have to convert into the Catholic Church as long as they are baptised! (http://www.iec2012.ie/it/cat_news.jsp?i=1629&p=1001&n=1016 )
-Lionel Andrades
According to Vatican Council II, the dogma on salvation, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other magisterial documents the Anglican Archbishop of Dublin who addressed the conference is oriented to Hell unless he converts into the Catholic Church.
The Theology Section of the Conference features an Ecclesiology of Communion. It is assumed that the Church no more teaches exclusive ecclesiocentris m since those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desie are explicit exceptions to the dogma.- and of course in Ireland they know these explicit cases in real life for them to be exceptions to the dogma.
Traditionalists in Ireland and elsewhere do not object to this ecclesiology since they too are (seemingly ?!) familiar with visible cases of the baptism of desire and they know people on earth, may be in Dublin, saved in invincible ignorance on earth and in Heaven.
A leader of the Catholic Focolare Movement gave her testimony on this ecclesiology and why Christian communities do not have to convert into the Catholic Church as long as they are baptised! (http://www.iec2012.ie/it/cat_news.jsp?i=1629&p=1001&n=1016 )
-Lionel Andrades
+1
#7
2012-06-12 09:17
This is an issue which needs to be discussed at a conference.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
The 50th International Eucharistic Congress (IEC) underway in Dublin, Ireland is based on dissent and heresy by the established Roman Catholic Church.
The Catholic Archbishop of Dublin,Diarmuid Martin on the Second Day of the International Eucharistic Congress has indicated that the Eucharist in the Catholic Church is not needed for salvation for all people including Christian communities;Pro testants.He contradicts Ecclesia di Eucarestia of Pope John Paul II.
He suggests that Anglicans and other Christian communities do not need to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church for salvation.
The Archbishop is also saying that Catholic Faith, which includes receiving the Eucharist, is not needed for salvation and that Christian communities can be saved in their respective religions without entering the Catholic Church.
He is denying Vatican Council II which states all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (AG 7). He is also denying the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which specified that Protestants need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.
He has called for an evangelization based on Jesus without the Catholic Church.
The archbishop has contradicted Dominus Iesus which says salvation is available for all however to receive it all need to enter the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church 848 says all need to enter the Church as though a door and cites Ad Gentes 7 (Catholic Faith and the baptism of water-not just the baptism of water ).CCC 845 says God the Father wants all people to be united in the Catholic Church.
continued
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/50th-international-eucharistic-congress.html#links
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
The 50th International Eucharistic Congress (IEC) underway in Dublin, Ireland is based on dissent and heresy by the established Roman Catholic Church.
The Catholic Archbishop of Dublin,Diarmuid Martin on the Second Day of the International Eucharistic Congress has indicated that the Eucharist in the Catholic Church is not needed for salvation for all people including Christian communities;Pro testants.He contradicts Ecclesia di Eucarestia of Pope John Paul II.
He suggests that Anglicans and other Christian communities do not need to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church for salvation.
The Archbishop is also saying that Catholic Faith, which includes receiving the Eucharist, is not needed for salvation and that Christian communities can be saved in their respective religions without entering the Catholic Church.
He is denying Vatican Council II which states all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (AG 7). He is also denying the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which specified that Protestants need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.
He has called for an evangelization based on Jesus without the Catholic Church.
The archbishop has contradicted Dominus Iesus which says salvation is available for all however to receive it all need to enter the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church 848 says all need to enter the Church as though a door and cites Ad Gentes 7 (Catholic Faith and the baptism of water-not just the baptism of water ).CCC 845 says God the Father wants all people to be united in the Catholic Church.
continued
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/50th-international-eucharistic-congress.html#links
0
#6
2012-05-26 14:59
Saturday, May 26, 2012
JOHN SALZA THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS NOT AN EXPLICIT EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
I am not referring to theology. It's not the issue of the baptism of desire compromising the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The baptism of desire is irrelvant to the dogma since we do not know any such case personally on earth.
If the baptism of desire contradicts the dogma then it would mean that the Letter of the Holy Office, the Magisterium made a mistake. (1)
-Lionel Andrades
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/john-salza-baptism-of-desire-is-not.html#links
JOHN SALZA THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS NOT AN EXPLICIT EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
I am not referring to theology. It's not the issue of the baptism of desire compromising the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The baptism of desire is irrelvant to the dogma since we do not know any such case personally on earth.
If the baptism of desire contradicts the dogma then it would mean that the Letter of the Holy Office, the Magisterium made a mistake. (1)
-Lionel Andrades
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/john-salza-baptism-of-desire-is-not.html#links
0
#5
2012-05-26 03:36
continued
Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits are believed to have tried to include this error in Vatican Council II but were blocked.Invincible ignorance etc in itself is no problem when it is mentioned in the text as long as one does not assume that it is an exception to the dogma.No text in Vatican Council II claims that it is an exception or that we known these cases personally.
However they did manage to create confusion. It seems, to priests today, that Ad Gentes 7 contradicts itself (if one assumes we know cases in Heaven) and Lumen Gentium 16 contradicts Ad Gentes 7 and the centuries old interpretation of the dogma.
Fr.Hans Kung repeated the Cushing Error after Vatican Council II.It seems as if Fr.Hans Kung had built his entire theological edifice on the Richard Cushing Error.
He began writing a series of books on how there is salvation in general for Buddhists, Protestants...and that the infallibilioty of the pope ex cathedra was contradicted with invincible ignorance etc being 'explicit' exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So he rejected the dogmas on infallibility and salvation.
Over time Pontifical Universities, cardinals and bishops, even the SSPX seminaries, would be infected with this error which emerged in the 1940's, years before Vatican Council II, in the Heresy Case not of Fr.Leonard Feeney but the Archbishop and Jesuits in the Archdiocese of Boston.They assumed that there were explicit exceptions to a de fide teaching.They also seemed to misinterpret the Letter as did the secular media in Boston and then the rest of the world.
-Lionel Andrades
Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits are believed to have tried to include this error in Vatican Council II but were blocked.Invincible ignorance etc in itself is no problem when it is mentioned in the text as long as one does not assume that it is an exception to the dogma.No text in Vatican Council II claims that it is an exception or that we known these cases personally.
However they did manage to create confusion. It seems, to priests today, that Ad Gentes 7 contradicts itself (if one assumes we know cases in Heaven) and Lumen Gentium 16 contradicts Ad Gentes 7 and the centuries old interpretation of the dogma.
Fr.Hans Kung repeated the Cushing Error after Vatican Council II.It seems as if Fr.Hans Kung had built his entire theological edifice on the Richard Cushing Error.
He began writing a series of books on how there is salvation in general for Buddhists, Protestants...and that the infallibilioty of the pope ex cathedra was contradicted with invincible ignorance etc being 'explicit' exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So he rejected the dogmas on infallibility and salvation.
Over time Pontifical Universities, cardinals and bishops, even the SSPX seminaries, would be infected with this error which emerged in the 1940's, years before Vatican Council II, in the Heresy Case not of Fr.Leonard Feeney but the Archbishop and Jesuits in the Archdiocese of Boston.They assumed that there were explicit exceptions to a de fide teaching.They also seemed to misinterpret the Letter as did the secular media in Boston and then the rest of the world.
-Lionel Andrades
0
#4
2012-05-26 03:35
continued
The Letter of the Holy Office supports Fr.Leonard Feeney since implicit desire can only be accepted as a possibility and is irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma, as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney and St.Benedict Center.
When the Letter criticizes Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center it is because they were disobedient to ‘ecclesiastical authority’.So if someone says that the Letter was critical of Fr.Leonard Feeney for denying the baptism of desire, since the baptism of desire is an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma, then this would be saying that the Magisterium made a mistake. This is not true.
If Fr.Leonard Feeney said there is no baptism of desire, in principle or fact, it is irrelevant to his literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
If the media says Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for denying the baptism of desire, then it would mean the Letter made a mistake, since the baptism of desire cannot be an exception to the dogma.
The Letter instead refers to 'the dogma', the 'infallible statement'. The text of the thrice defined dogma indicates everyone is required to 'be incorporated into the Church actually as a member'.The dogma does not mention any known exceptions of the baptism of desire etc.This was the Richard Cushing Error. It was the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits of Boston who assumed that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire were exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, and of course, to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
continued
The Letter of the Holy Office supports Fr.Leonard Feeney since implicit desire can only be accepted as a possibility and is irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma, as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney and St.Benedict Center.
When the Letter criticizes Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center it is because they were disobedient to ‘ecclesiastical authority’.So if someone says that the Letter was critical of Fr.Leonard Feeney for denying the baptism of desire, since the baptism of desire is an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma, then this would be saying that the Magisterium made a mistake. This is not true.
If Fr.Leonard Feeney said there is no baptism of desire, in principle or fact, it is irrelevant to his literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
If the media says Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for denying the baptism of desire, then it would mean the Letter made a mistake, since the baptism of desire cannot be an exception to the dogma.
The Letter instead refers to 'the dogma', the 'infallible statement'. The text of the thrice defined dogma indicates everyone is required to 'be incorporated into the Church actually as a member'.The dogma does not mention any known exceptions of the baptism of desire etc.This was the Richard Cushing Error. It was the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits of Boston who assumed that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire were exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, and of course, to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
continued
0
#3
2012-05-26 03:34
Friday, May 25, 2012
DID THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949, THE MAGISTERIUM, MAKE A MISTAKE? NO
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was issued to the Archbishop of Boston during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. It did not make a mistake when it said that every one needs to be incorporated into the church as a member does not exclude those who can be saved with implicit desire.
It means in principle, only as a concept, as a belief there can be non Catholics saved with implicit desire. The Letter if it is saying only in principle ‘it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member’, it has not made a mistake.However if someone misreads the Letter and assumes those saved with an implicit desire are known to us on earth; they are explicitly known, and so are exceptions, so every one does not need to be incorporated as a member into the Church - this is a mistake.We do not know anyone on earth saved with an implicit desire. Neither do we know anyone in Heaven saved with an implicit desire.
continued
DID THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949, THE MAGISTERIUM, MAKE A MISTAKE? NO
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was issued to the Archbishop of Boston during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. It did not make a mistake when it said that every one needs to be incorporated into the church as a member does not exclude those who can be saved with implicit desire.
It means in principle, only as a concept, as a belief there can be non Catholics saved with implicit desire. The Letter if it is saying only in principle ‘it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member’, it has not made a mistake.However if someone misreads the Letter and assumes those saved with an implicit desire are known to us on earth; they are explicitly known, and so are exceptions, so every one does not need to be incorporated as a member into the Church - this is a mistake.We do not know anyone on earth saved with an implicit desire. Neither do we know anyone in Heaven saved with an implicit desire.
continued
0
#2
2012-05-09 15:27
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Outside the Church there is no salvation.) does not hold that only those with water baptism can be saved. Cf: http://www.catholicintl.com/index.php/component/content/article/52-theology/577-baptism-of-desire-legit-or-not-legit
Also: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature%20-%20Salza%20v%20Goddard%20on%20Baptism%20of%20Desire.pdf
Also: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature%20-%20Salza%20v%20Goddard%20on%20Baptism%20of%20Desire.pdf
-2
#1
2012-05-09 05:40
This Conference is good news.
However I am concerned that most of the participants believe that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So they reject the literal interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney, the popes, saints, Catechisms and Vatican Council I and Vatican Council II (AG 7).
If you do not accept the literal interpretation of the dogma in accord with Vatican Council II(AG 7) how can you affirm the Social Kingship of Christ the King over all political and social legislation.
This can been seen in the HHS contraception mandate, Sebellius speaking at Georgetown...
However I am concerned that most of the participants believe that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So they reject the literal interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney, the popes, saints, Catechisms and Vatican Council I and Vatican Council II (AG 7).
If you do not accept the literal interpretation of the dogma in accord with Vatican Council II(AG 7) how can you affirm the Social Kingship of Christ the King over all political and social legislation.
This can been seen in the HHS contraception mandate, Sebellius speaking at Georgetown...
Add comment
- VIDEO
- VID 2
- VID 3
- VID 4
- VID 5
- VID 6
- VID 7
- VID 8
- Vid 9
- Vid 10
- Vid 11
- Vid 12
- VID 13
- VID 14
- VID 15
- VID 16
- VID 17
- VID 18
- VID 19
- VID 20
- News
- Opinion
- Extra
- Poll
New Movie!!! BREAKING NEWS -- "THE PRINCIPLE" IS COMING! Those of you who have supported this minist... Read more |
Are Evangelical Christians War By Chuck Baldwin September 15, 2011 Archived column: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=3971 R. Sungenis: This soberi... Read more |
CHRISTIAN ZIONISM: The Source by Charles E Carlson The French author, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote Democracy in America when he traveled here in th... Read more |
Eucharistic Miracles of the Wo THE REAL PRESENCE CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST The Eucharistic Miracles of the Worl... Read more |
Can the Big Bang be Merged wit Can the Big Bang be Merged with Genesis 1? Vincent: Not sure how anything in the Big Bang contradicts Scripture. &nb... Read more |
Popular Articles
Latest comments
- US Defense Dept. Classifies Ca...
It's now obvious our government is Anti-Christian....
10.04.13 05:45 - The Real Albert Einstein
William, what proof do you have that Crowley is G ...
06.04.13 13:25 - Obamacare Madates RFID Chip Im...
Kind of knew this day was coming could seeochip it...
06.04.13 08:31 - Pope Francis Causing Controve...
If the Pope contradicts official dogma, we have so...
04.04.13 11:33 - The Real Albert Einstein
The famous 1960s rock band, Led Zeppelin, was deep...
03.04.13 20:02 - Pope Francis Causing Controve...
@ Carmelo TGIC ...( Thank God I'm Catholic )
03.04.13 17:42 - Pope Francis Causing Controve...
William, If I may, it is possible; however, Russia...
03.04.13 14:59 - Pope Francis Causing Controve...
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Is it safe to say ...
03.04.13 10:28 - Noah's Ark? Run it by Mark She...
He peddles his wears, but in emails and forums, he...
01.04.13 08:47 - $10,000 for Non-Literal Interp...
Here is a direct link to Dr. Sungenis' work on Gen...
29.03.13 15:20