Fr. John Zuhlsdorff writes:
For your opportune knowledge.Fr. Z. adds: "You may also like - APNews: "Catholic bloggers aim to purse dissenters"
This comes from the website of the Archdiocese of Detroit. You can decide for yourselves what you want to do with this information.Statement regarding Real Catholic TV and its name Issued: Dec. 15, 2011Contact: Joe Kohn, infodesk@aod.org / (313) 237-5943 Print this statement (Español)
The Church encourages the Christian faithful to promote or sustain a variety of apostolic undertakings but, nevertheless, prohibits any such undertaking from claiming the name Catholic without the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority (see canon 216 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law). For some time, the Archdiocese of Detroit has been in communication with Mr. Michael Voris and his media partner at Real Catholic TV regarding their prominent use of the word “Catholic” in identifying and promoting their public activities disseminated from the enterprise’s production facility in Ferndale, Michigan. The Archdiocese has informed Mr. Voris and Real Catholic TV, RealCatholicTV.com, that it does not regard them as being authorized to use the word “Catholic” to identify or promote their public activities. Questions about this matter may be directed to the Archdiocese of Detroit, Department of Communications.
He's too much of a real Catholic for his bishop!
ReplyDeleteThe comments over at Fr Z, esp. Sejoga's (No. 2) are on target.
ReplyDeleteAll I have to say is that when the authorities are as clear and consistent on liberal and pansexual voices as they are with folks like Vorris who frighten their 60s-70s sensibilities, then such concerns about CAtholic identity will have some teeth. Until then, with folks like Fr. O'Leary misleading with liberty, it is another occasion for LOL.
Pure bunk I would blow this off unless the Bishop himself cares to intervene, in which case maybe we should all just become Traditionalists.
ReplyDeleteThe National "Catholic" Reporter has ignored similar warnings and statements from the Diocese of KC.
ReplyDeleteR. Weakland did the same thing to a privately-organized grade school in Milwaukee. They changed their letterhead to say "...a school in the Catholic tradition."
You're not authorized to use Catholic, but if you're in favor of partial birth abortion feel free to come and receive the Eucharist, OMG.
ReplyDeleteTuesday, January 10, 2012
ReplyDeleteERRORS IN THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: OUTSIDE THE CHURCH NO SALVATION
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) under the sub heading outside the church there is no salvation mentions invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire as exceptions. They are not defacto exceptions.
Vatican Council II also mentions invincible ignorance (LG 16) but nowhere implies that it is an exception to the dogma or the ordinary means of salvation.
The Catechism instead implies that those who are saved in invincible ignorance are visible and known to us, so the baptism of water is needed by only those who know about Jesus and the Church.
The text of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus states that everyone needs to enter the Church. The text of the dogma defined three times is not included in the Catechism.This is all misleading.
To imply that the baptism of desire is a defacto exception to the dogma is heresy. It is indifferentism when one says non Catholics can be defacto saved in their religion and we know who these cases are. This teaching is not part of the Deposit of the Faith. It is irrational and a repititon of the Richard Cushing Error.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in preparing the Catechism did not violate the Principle of Non Contradiction. Since defactro every one needs to enter the Church for salvation (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence) and dejure, in principle, in theory and known only to God a person can be saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.
Placing invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire under the subheading Outside the Church NO Salvation however implies that they are relevant to the dogma or defacto exceptions.
For the Catechism to say that the baptism of water is needed for only those who know about Jesus and the Church could imply that those saved in invincible ignorance are defacto known to us in the present time. It implies that we know these particular cases and so we cannot say that everyone on earth with no exception needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of desire for salvation: to avoid the fires of Hell.
Also to suggest that only those who ‘know’ need the baptism of water for salvation would imply that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated not for disobedience but for heresy. It would also imply that the excommunication was wrongly lifted by the Catholic Church without the priest having to recant or make changes in his writing. It also implies that the popes, saints and Fr. Leonard Feeney were wrong in saying everyone needs to be an explicit member of the Church for salvation. It would also be a contradiction of three Councils which defined the dogma in an extra ordinary mode. The ‘dogma’ is referred to in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 as the ‘infallible statement’.
For a priest to knowingly say that there are defacto exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is a first class heresy and a mortal sin. He is refuting the Nicene Creed in which we pray, “I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” and “I believe in the Holy Spirit the Holy Catholic Church”. It was the Holy Spirit which guided the Magisterium of the Church to teach over the centuries that outside the church there is no salvation.
A priest, who knowingly continues in this error, even after being informed, is in manifest public heresy and is not to offer Mass without receiving absolution in the Confessional and making public amends; removing the sacrilege. Similarly it would be a sacrilege for a lay person knowingly in this error to receive the Eucharist.
-Lionel Andrades
CONTINUED
continued
ReplyDeleteERRORS IN THE CATECHISM ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/errors-in-catechism.html
Practically everyone needs the baptism of water for salvation while in theory a person can be saved with the baptism of desire - Rector, Church Santa Maria Annunziata, Rome
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/practically-everyone-needs-baptism-of.html
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church why did Cardial Joseph Ratzinger not mention that the baptism of desire is not a defacto exception to the dogma outside the church no salvation nor to Vatican Council II ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/in-catechism-of-catholic-church-why-did.html
ETERNAL WORD TELEVISION NETWORK (EWTN) SAYS 'SUBMISSION TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION'
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/eternal-word-television-network-ewtn.html
CHURCH TEXT IS CRITICAL OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON : REFERS TO IMPLICIT AND NOT EXPLICIT (TO US) BAPTISM OF DESIRE
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/church-text-critical-of-archbishop-of.html
VICARIATE OFFICES FOR YOUTH AND THE SICK ARE TEACHING ERRORS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/vicariate-offices-for-youth-and-sick.html
YOUTUBE VIDEO QUESTIONS TO ASK THE CATHOLIC CHAPLAIN OR PROFESSOR
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/youtube-video-questions-to-ask-catholic.html
PROFESSION OF FAITH: I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/profession-of-faith-i-believe-in-holy.html
DID THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 CONTRADICT THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS? NO
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/did-letter-of-holy-office-1949.html
ROME VICARIATE HIT BY THE RICHARD CUSHING ERROR : Centro Della pastorale sanitaria says the baptism of water is not defacto needed for the salvation of all on earth
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/rome-vicariate-hit-by-richard-cushing.html
BOSTON ARCHDIOCESE WEBSITE SAYS NOSTRA AETATE DISMISSES CHURCH INTEREST IN BAPTIZING JEWS AND AFFIRMS GOD’S COVENANT WITH THEM : NOWHERE DOES VATICAN COUNCIL II MAKE THIS CLAIM
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/boston-archdiocese-website-says-nostra.html
CATHOLIC ANSWERS SUCCUMBS TO THE RICHARD CUSHING ERROR
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/catholic-answers-succumbs-to-richard.html
MSGR.JOSEPH FENTON AND FR. WILLIAM MOST DID NOT NOTICE THE RICHARD CUSHING ERROR
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/msgrjoseph-fenton-and-fr-william-most.html
USCCB REPORT MAKES ALLOWANCE FOR THE RICHARD CUSHING ERROR
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/usccb-report-makes-allowance-for.html
FR.LEONARD FEENEY AND HIS COMMUNITIES HAVE ACCEPTED THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE PER SE
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/frleonard-feeney-and-his-communities.html
ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON CARDINAL RICHARD CUSHINGS LEGACY: FOLLOWERS INCLUDE USCCB, EWTN, CATHOLIC ANSWERS, SSPX, SEDEVACANTISTS MHFM
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/archbishop-of-boston-cardinal-richard.html
CARDINAL RATZINGER DID NOT VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLE OF NON CONTRADICTION AS CATHOLICS UNITED FOR THE FAITH IMPLY
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search/label/Catholics%20United%20for%20the%20Faith
FR.TULLIO ROTONDO AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/08/frtullio-rotondo-affirms-cantate-domino.html#links
LEGIONARY OF CHRIST PRIEST FR.RAFAEL PASCUAL AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search/label/Fr.Rafael%20Pascual%20L.C
CATHOLIC LAY PROFESSOR AT UNIVERSITA EUROPA DI ROMA AFFIRMS DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search/label/Corrado%20Gnerre
Catholic Mission/Lionel Andrades writes, "The case is similar to that of apologist Robert Sungenis of Catholic Apologetics International (CAI). His former bishop asked him to remove the name Catholic from CAI. Robert was also being opposed by the Jewish Left while his bishop was unable to say in public that Jews need to convert into the Church for salvation."
ReplyDeleteThis is a lie and you need to stop spreading it across the Internet as you're currently doing on several blogs, Lionel. The views that people (including Bishop Rhoades) tried to stop Robert Sungenis from pushing were the ones you can read about here:
http://wquercus.com/sungenis/
http://www.sungenisandthejews.com/Section2.html
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/09/open-invitation-to-bob-sungenis.html
Slow down and read. You have no justification or right to imply that Bishop Rhoades is a heretic as you've done here and in many other places. It’s amazing that someone actually has to tell a self-styled super-Catholic something so basic.
Here are some articles, with statements from Bishop Rhoades, showing plainly that he’s orthodox on this issue. They also show what happened with Sungenis and that the conflict wasn’t about whether or not Jews are saved by Christ and the Church like everyone else.
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2009/09/bishop-rhoades-and-dual-covenant-theory.html
https://sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/defense-of-bishop-rhoades-from-false-accusations
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/03/by-sungenis-alone_29.html#thirteen
One of the articles states that you were the person who attacked Bishop Rhoades on Sungenis’ behalf by emailing the priests of Harrisburg, basically accusing the bishop of being a heretic. All you did was stir up more tension and animosity with that stunt. Until you gain some humility and common sense, you might want to consider holding off on assuming the role of “super-teacher” and “Guardian of the Truth” [TM].
Grant:
ReplyDeleteThe information and links which are posted here only confirm what I have been saying all along. There is nothing new here.
Bishop Kevin Rhoades is unable to say that Jews need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation (to avoid Hell). He still maintains vaguely that Jesus is necessary for salvation. So one can believe that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are the ordinary means of salvation and so Jews do not have to convert into the Catholic Church.
Bishop Rhoades could not even answer something so basic as ‘Are non Catholic religions paths to salvation ? ’ (Dominus Iesus 20,CDF,Notification on Fr.Jacques Dupuis S.J ).
Then there is the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, thrice defined.He still cannot affirm it in public and secondly considers those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire as possible exceptions to the dogma. This would mean that the baptism of desire is visible and so an exception to the dogma and that we know of explicit cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance. One could phone or meet them.
This is the heresy of Cushingism. It was Cardinal Richard Cushing,Archbishop of Boston who said that there was salvation outside the church implying that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are explicitly known to us, for them to be exceptions to the dogma.
Cushingism is heresy.
It was Robert Sungenis who accused the bishop of being a heretic ,not for the sin of Cushingism, but since he could basically not say that Judaism is not a path to salvation and that Jews need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.
I am familiar with the links you have sent and there is nothing new in it. Inspite of the propaganda it has not made Robert Sungenis give up his Catholic Faith even though he must have had to pay a price for his faithfulness to Catholic teaching.
Now the same whip of declaring someone not a Catholic is being applied to Real Catholic TV.com since the financier and owner lives in the diocese of Bishop Kevin Rhoades.
Accusations are being made against Michael Vorris without naming the charge.The Sungenis case is a precedent which tells us why Michael Vorris is targeted .
(cont'd from above)
ReplyDeleteIt’s really not that hard to imagine good reasons why you never got an answer from Bishop Rhoades that have nothing to do with him being a heretic. Sungenis posted a letter from the vicar general to the priests of the Harrisburg diocese that explains pretty much what happened and why. The vicar wrote, “Many clergy and diocesan offices recently received an electronic mail from Lionel Andrades with the title, ‘BISHOP RHOADES CHANGING CHURCH TEACHING ON SALVATION.’ … [now read this next part carefully]… It is likely that the current attempt to disseminate this blog entry is intended to provoke a response from Bishop Rhoades or from a representative of the Diocese of Harrisburg. Such a response would itself be widely disseminated, in an attempt to give greater apparent weight to the controversy and greater attention to its participants.”
In other words, the vicar general decided that it was a bad idea to interact with you and Sungenis because you just seemed to be trying to get attention for yourselves and to create discord. I think that was a pretty understandable conclusion for him to reach. It wasn’t because Bishop Rhoades is a heretic and he was just afraid you might unmask him. I think it's obvious why the diocese stopped communicating with Sungenis, too.
These sections explain a lot:
https://sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/defense-of-bishop-rhoades-from-false-accusations#BetterNarrative
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/03/by-sungenis-alone_29.html#fifteen
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/03/by-sungenis-alone_29.html#six
I've never seen anything that Bishop Rhoades has ever said or written that would come any where near justifying your condemnations. He's come out publicly and said that there's only one economy of salvation and that economy is through Jesus Christ by means of His Church. He publicly said he's for the evangelization of Jews to the Catholic faith. He's publicly praised articles rejecting the two Covenant theory. He's publicly praised an article stating that the Old Covenant was superseded by the New Covenant and that there's only one path to salvation - the New Covenant in Jesus Christ by means of his Church. He voted to change the sentence on page 131 in the US Catechism that was a problem. He believes the Reflections on Covenant and Mission document was wrong. There's probably more. But yes, I can see why he's obviously a heretic. (I'm joking, Lionel).
So again, you need to stop spreading these lies. And you need to understand that you're no one in particular. You've got no authority or right to go around publicly condemning people you've never even spoken with of being heretics. If anyone needs to go to Confession in this equation, it's not the Pope.
The section of the Wikipedia article on "Supercessionism" dealing with "Roman Catholicism" is actually quite decent. It shows that while the term "supercessionism" is used nowhere in RC documents, the basic idea of "fulfillment theology" is essentially embedded in Catholic tradition. The Church is the New Israel. Nothing wrong in saying this. The New Covenant represents a seamless fulfillment of the Old, without rupture, rather than something alien.
ReplyDeleteGrant
ReplyDeleteHow do you answer these two questions ?
Basic questions about the Catholic Faith are still there before those who maintain the website Robert Sungenis and the Jews and they are still there before Bishop Kevin Rhoades.
1. Does the Catholic Church teach that Judaism is not a path to salvation? (Dominus Iesus 20, CDF,Notification on Fr.Jacques Dupuis S.J, Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (reference to 'the dogma', the 'infallible teaching' ), Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441etc.
2. Jews need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell (for salvation)? (Vatican Council II, Ad Gentes 7,Lumen Gentium 14 etc)
Will Bishops Allen Vigneron and Kevin Rhoades give permission for a website against Michael Vorris?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/will-bishops-allen-vigneron-and-kevin.html#links
Grant
ReplyDeleteRefusal to affirm the dogma or a Catholic teaching when asked is a denial.
I had personally written to Bishop Rhaodes when he was the bishop of Harrisburg,Penn. I also had written to other priests there asking them for answers to just three questions.(Idid not call him a hertic).
Those three questions were posted on the website Robert Sungenis and the Jews. It was not answered by an Emeritus President of Catholics United for the Faith nor by the person who maintained the blog and would be quoting the bishop often whom he knew personally.
The teachings of the Catholic Church apply to all Catholics. They apply to bishops, cardinals and the pope. The Sacrament of Confession is available for all. Since there is a possibility that all of us can lose the inheritance Jesus won for us.
They are not condemned by me since I am just a lay man. I am only pointing out to the teachings of the Church. It is for them to affirm the Catholic Faith.
The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus says Jews and Protestants are destined to Hell since they have to convert into the Church for salvation. Dominus Iesus says all mankind needs to enter the Church for salvation. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 affirms ‘the dogma’ the ‘infallible teaching’. This has been the teaching for centuries before and after Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14).
Bishop Rhodes did not restate the orthodox position here :
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/bishop-rhoades-sets-record-straight_21.html
He did not affirm the teachings of the Church. This was the whole issue. Many questions were left unanswered.
Grant
ReplyDeleteThe blog Good Saints mentioned what I wrote about Pope Benedict and heresy and excommunication. That blog also carried this post.
'False Ed. See more info here.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/cushingism-is-heresy-charity-demands.html
'Ed in your case I said it was heresy since you know that Lumen Gentium 16 is not an exception to the dogma. You have been informed and yet as a Catholic you are not affirming a Church teaching,you imply that there are defacto exceptions to the dogma.
'Regarding the pope and his Curia we do not know if he was aware of Cushingism. We do not know if he knows that there is no defacto known case of the baptism of desire. Unknowingly he could be making the same error as many Catholics.
'So charity demands we give the pope the benefit of the doubt until someone asks him a direct question.
'Recently the pope said the the Church is Mission.
So if there is a direct denial of the Faith then what you have mentioned below is true.
The pope has said in one of his books that what he is writing is not infallible and he is open to correction.
_______________________
Also see :
Monday, January 16, 2012
TO CLAIM THAT LUMEN GENTIUM 16 IS A DEFACTO EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION IS HERESY AND ALSO IRRATIONAL
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/to-claim-that-lumen-gentium-16-is.html
Charles
ReplyDeleteRegarding Wikipedia.
WIKIPEDIA MISINTERPRETS DOMINUS IESUS
The Wikipedia entry on Dominus Iesus (English) has been changed and the new entry is a liberal comment with no citations.
It says that it excludes the Orthodox Christians from having to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. (1). Then it says that the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus indicates that those in invincible ignorance can be saved.
The catholic dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus does not even mention the possibility of salvation for persons invincibly ignorance (through no fault of their own). The dogma instead mentions Orthodox Christians (schismatics) and Protestants (heretics) as being damned unless they enter the Catholic Church. http://catholicism.org/category/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation
It then mentions that Feeneyism has been condemned implying that this is a contradiction of Dominus Iesus and the dogma.(3)
Fr.Leonard Feeney affirmed the dogma which the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 called an infallible statement’ so how could it be said that he was condemned for heresy ?
Also Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 acknowledge that a person can be saved in invincible ignorance etc.These documents do not state that being saved in invincible ignorance is a defacto exception to the dogma.Wikpedia assumes it is.
Vatican Council II also says that Catholic Faith and the baptism of water is needed for salvation(AG 7,LG 14). This is the ordinary means of salvation. Similarly the dogma referred to in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is the ordinary means of salvation.This has been the traditional teaching of the Church.
-Lionel Andrades
1.
It is subtitled "On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church". It is most widely known for its recapitulation of the Catholic dogma that the Catholic Church is the sole true Church of Christ.
On one hand, the document says that non-Catholic Christian ecclesial communities that have not preserved a valid episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery are not Churches in the proper sense[1] and that non-Christians are seriously deficient in terms of access to the means of salvation in comparison with those who in the Church have the full means of salvation.[2] This excludes the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, whom the Catholic Church recognizes as having validly ordained bishops.
2.
A Catholic dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (literally "no salvation outside the Church") has sometimes been interpreted as denying salvation to non-Catholic Christians as well as non-Christians, though constant[citation needed] Catholic teaching has stressed the possibility of salvation for persons invincibly ignorant (through no fault of their own) of the Catholic Church's necessity and thus not culpable for lacking communion with the Church. –Wikipedia on Dominus Iesus.
3.
In the 20th century this inclusive approach was expressed in the condemnation of Feeneyism and in the declaration of the Second Vatican Council, which said that "the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator," although this is ambiguous and numerous interpretations have arisen. Vatican II further affirmed that salvation could be available to people who had not even heard of Christ (cf. Acts 17:23)— but that all who gain salvation do so only by membership in the Catholic Church, whether that membership is ordinary (explicit) or by extraordinary means (implicit).
Charles, I read the section on Wikipedia about supersessionism. It's surprisingly decent. And I completely agree with you about "fulfillment theology." But Wikipedia included two links to articles about "supersessionism" that show why it's probably better not to use that term. It admits of a variety of interpretations, some of which don't accurately reflect the Church's teaching. The word "supersessionism" has also come to take on some negative baggage because of the way it's used in certain circles. So I think it's better to stick with terms that are used and more clearly understood/defined by the Church.
ReplyDeleteThe Wikipedia article linked to two other articles that cover that issue:
http://www.cuf.org/laywitness/LWonline/ja09forrest.asp
http://www.theologicalstudies.citymax.com/f/Variations_within_supersessionism_for_ETS.doc
Lionel,
ReplyDeleteIn other words, the answer to all three of my questions is "no", exactly as I thought.
1) Can you prove that Bishop Rhoades personally received and read this specific statement about non Catholic religions being paths to salvation?
No.
2) And, if so, can you prove that he actually refused to agree that other religions aren’t paths to salvation?
No.
3) And if so, can you then prove that he refused to answer specifically because he actually believes that other religions are paths to salvation?
No.
You wrote, "Refusal to affirm the dogma or a Catholic teaching when asked is a denial."
Let me try to explain it again, Lionel. You don't know that Bishop Rhoades "refused" to affirm **anything** because you don't even know whether he received and reviewed your email. And even if you did know that the bishop himself received and reviewed your email (which you don't), you would still need to verify that he refused to answer specifically because he actually believes that other religions are paths to salvation. You have no proof of that, either.
As I already pointed out, the vicar general for Harrisburg said plainly why he had no interest in communicating with you. He concluded that you were just trying to get attention and create discord. Considering your and Sungenis' behavior, that was a very reasonable conclusion to reach.
You wrote, "I did not call [Bishop Rhoades] a heretic."
And I didn't say that you actually used the word "heretic" in your email, Lionel. I said that you basically accused him of being a heretic, and you did. You sent out an accusation to all the priests of the Diocese of Harrisburg accusing Bishop Rhoades of changing the doctrine of the Church on salvation. The "subject line" of your email to the priests of the Diocese of Harrisburg was "BISHOP RHOADES CHANGING CHURCH TEACHING ON SALVATION".
What is that other than basically accusing him of being a heretic? Do you really still have no sense of how ridiculous, rash and counterproductive that stunt was and why most people would naturally decide to have nothing further to do with you as a result?
You mentioned your interactions at Catholics United for the Faith, so I searched their website and this is what I found:
http://www.cufblog.org/?p=324
I had to smile when I read what the president of CUF wrote to you because it was almost exactly what I've been writing to you.
Leon Suprenant wrote, "Lionel, as you have admitted elsewhere, Bishop Rhoades provided orthodox responses to the questions that were posted to him in the context of the unfortunate Bob Sungenis controversy. Your questions or issues are slightly different, and no one in that diocese wants to engage you in this matter. With all due respect, so what? Bishop Rhoades is under no obligation to submit to your personal (and not particularly clear or helpful) litmus test for orthodoxy, especially since he hasn’t said or done anything that should raise a legitimate concern in that regard."
(more below)
(cont'd from above):
ReplyDeleteAnd I just noticed that you openly admitted at the CUF website, "Bishop Rhoades will personally not answer my questions, nor his Vicar General nor the Deacon in his diocese who teaches Adult Faith nor the lady in charge of religious education. None of the priests respond."
So that even further settles it, Lionel. You've got nothing. So you need to stop criss-crossing the Internet making baseless accusations against this Catholic bishop.
You write, "Bishop Rhodes did not restate the orthodox position...He did not affirm the teachings of the Church. This was the whole issue. Many questions were left unanswered."
No, Lionel, this was *not* "the whole issue." It's *your* issue, but it wasn't Sungenis' issue nor anyone else's issue directly involved in the dispute. Again, neither Sungenis nor the bishop nor the vicar nor anyone else directly involved ever even *mentioned* EENS. Only *you* keep mentioning it, Lionel.
You write, "I am only pointing out to the teachings of the Church."
No, Lionel, that's not "only" what you're doing. You're presuming to read people's minds and then publicly condemning them based on your own negative imaginings. Again, you're no one in particular, and anyone can feel free to ignore your demands for answers without therefore being even suspect of heresy, let alone being condemned for it. So, please, enough with the Kanonical Kangaroo Kourt. Capisce?
Now, before I go, please consider a couple of other suggestions from a brother in Christ. I'm going to assume that your intentions are good, but that you're either very confused or misguided.
Bishops are extraordinarily busy people who have many responsibilities and pressures. Your job is not to be the doctrinal over-seer of bishops or popes. You have enough to do watching over yourself and your family. The only questions you should be asking a bishop about doctrinal matters are those designed to help you and your family grow in faith and come closer to the Lord. And if you don't get an answer, make sure to consider the most charitable possibilities rather than rushing to rash, negative conclusions.
God bless.
Charles,
ReplyDeleteOne of the links I copied in that was listed at the Wikipedia entry about supersessionism didn't come through completely. This one is by a Dr. Vlach called "Variations within Supersessionism":
http://www.theologicalstudies.citymax.com/f/Variations_within_supersessionism_for_ETS.doc
Thursday, January 19, 2012
ReplyDeleteCANON LAWYER IN INDIANA NEEDS TO BE ASKED : IS BISHOP KEVIN RHOADES JURIDICALLY A CATHOLIC ?
Evidence of the Fort Wayne Bend bishops denial of the Catholic Faith is on a website.
Canon Lawyer Fr. Mark Gurtner (Judicial Vicar of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend in Indiana) said, it was reported on the internet, that the jurisdiction of the case against Real Catholic TV.com lies in the Indiana diocese whose bishop is Kevin Rhoades.
Bishop Kevin Rhoades when he was the bishop of Harrisburg, Pennsylavia had also asked apologist Robert Sungenis to remove the name 'Catholic' from this website Catholic Apologetics International (CAI).The issue was the Jewish Left.
Bishop Kevin Rhoades also approved a website Robert Sungenis and the Jews and provided statements to Michael Forrest which are still there on this anti-Sungenis website.
I had asked three questions of Bishop Rhoades and also written to other priests hoping they would answer them and so diffuse the tension at that time.The three questions were posted on the website Robert Sungenis and the Jews but were not answered. There was no answer also from ishop Kevin Rhoades. Robert Sungenis called Bishop Rhoades and Catholics United for the Faith, Steubenville, heretics.
According to Canon Law a bishop is a juridical person and has to be a Catholic. He is obliged to affirm the teachings of the Catholic Church.If Bishop Rohades does not affirm the faith when asked it is a denial.
1. Bishop Kevin Rhoades is denying an ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Outside the Church No Salvation). http://catholicism.org/category/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation
2. He is refusing to say that Judaism and other religions are not paths to salvation.
3. He is refusing to say that Jews need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation (to avoid Hell).
4. The Bishop in Indiana is assuming that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are defacto known to us in the present times, since he considers them exceptions to the dogma and other magisterial teachings.
5. Bishop Kevin Rhoades is assuming that there is some magisterial text which claims that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are defacto exceptions to the dogma outside the church there is no salvation.
This is all contrary to Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7), Dominus Iesus 20, extra ecclesiam nulla salus as explained by popes and Church Councils in the ordinary and extraordinary mode etc.
Bishop Kevin Rhoades offers Holy Mass when it is a mortal sin to reject an ex cathedra dogma. He denies Church teachings on other religions and yet calls himself a ‘Catholic’.
He uses his office to tell those who are faithful to the very teachings he rejects, not to use the word Catholic i.e apologists Robert Sungenis and Michael Voris.
The denial of the faith is there in the four points he mentions to Michael Forrest on the website Robert Sungenis and the Jews. http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/bishop-rhoades-sets-record-straight_21.html
The Canon Lawyer from Indiana who has said that the jurisdiction over the Real Catholic.TV.com lies in the diocese of Fort-Wayne South Bend where Marc Brammar the owner of Real Catholic TV.com lives, could also let us know if Bishop Kevin Rhoades has the right to juridically call himself a Catholic and to offer Holy Mass.
-Lionel Andrades
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
ReplyDeleteBISHOP KEVIN RHOADES DENIES THE CATHOLIC FAITH
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/bishop-kevin-rhoades-denies-catholic.html
JEWISH CATHOLIC DAY OF REFLECTION TODAY
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/jewish-catholic-day-of-reflection-day.html
Will Bishops Allen Vigneron and Kevin Rhoades give permission for a website against Michael Vorris?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/will-bishops-allen-vigneron-and-kevin.html
Questions for the Canon Lawyers:Can Archbishop Allen Vigneron and Bishop Kevin Rhoades be considered Catholic if they refuse to affirm in public the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/questions-for-canon-lawyers-can.html
It's a Free Country.. : A Catholic who rejects a defined dogma like outside the church no salvation is automatically excomunicated. He has no right to use the word 'Catholic'.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/its-free-country.html
Grant
ReplyDeleteI do not know if there was a system error when you were posting. I did ask you these two questions.
How do you answer these two questions ?
1. Does the Catholic Church teach that Judaism is not a path to salvation? (Dominus Iesus 20, CDF,Notification on Fr.Jacques Dupuis S.J, Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (reference to 'the dogma', the 'infallible teaching' ), Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441etc.
2. Jews need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell (for salvation)? (Vatican Council II, Ad Gentes 7,Lumen Gentium 14 etc)
DR. BLOSSER -
ReplyDeleteI POSTED A COMMENT THAT IS MISSING IN THE SERIES RIGHT BEFORE THE ONE STARTS WITH, "(cont'd from above): And I just noticed that you openly admitted at the CUF website, "Bishop Rhoades will personally not answer my questions..." (11:19 PM) IF YOU HAVE IT AND CAN RELEASE IT, THEN PLEASE DO THAT IF YOU WOULD. IF THAT COMMENT IS MISSING FOR SOME REASON AND YOU CAN'T FIND IT, THEN PLEASE POST THIS INSTEAD. THANK YOU.
{NOTE- This comment should be read BEFORE the one on 11:19 that starts with, "(cont'd from above): And I just noticed that you openly admitted at the CUF website, 'Bishop Rhoades will personally not answer my questions...'"}
Lionel,
In other words, the answer to all three of my questions is "no", exactly as I thought.
1) Can you prove that Bishop Rhoades personally received and read this specific statement about non Catholic religions being paths to salvation?
No.
2) And, if so, can you prove that he actually refused to agree that other religions aren’t paths to salvation?
No.
3) And if so, can you then prove that he refused to answer specifically because he actually believes that other religions are paths to salvation?
No.
You wrote, "Refusal to affirm the dogma or a Catholic teaching when asked is a denial."
Let me try to explain it again, Lionel. You don't know that Bishop Rhoades "refused" to affirm **anything** because you don't even know whether he received and reviewed your email. And even if you did know that the bishop himself received and reviewed your email (which you don't), you would still need to verify that he refused to answer specifically because he actually believes that other religions are paths to salvation. You have no proof of that, either.
As I already pointed out, the vicar general for Harrisburg said plainly why he had no interest in communicating with you. He concluded that you were just trying to get attention and create discord. Considering your and Sungenis' behavior, that was a very reasonable conclusion to reach.
You wrote, "I did not call [Bishop Rhoades] a heretic."
And I didn't say that you actually used the word "heretic" in your email, Lionel. I said that you basically accused him of being a heretic, and you did. You sent out an accusation to all the priests of the Diocese of Harrisburg accusing Bishop Rhoades of changing the doctrine of the Church on salvation. The "subject line" of your email to the priests of the Diocese of Harrisburg was "BISHOP RHOADES CHANGING CHURCH TEACHING ON SALVATION".
What is that other than basically accusing him of being a heretic? Do you really still have no sense of how ridiculous, rash and counterproductive that stunt was and why most people would naturally decide to have nothing further to do with you as a result?
You mentioned your interactions at the Catholics United for the Faith, so I searched their website and this is what I found:
http://www.cufblog.org/?p=324
I had to smile when I read what the president of CUF wrote to you because it was almost exactly what I've been writing to you.
Leon Suprenant wrote, "Lionel, as you have admitted elsewhere, Bishop Rhoades provided orthodox responses to the questions that were posted to him in the context of the unfortunate Bob Sungenis controversy. Your questions or issues are slightly different, and no one in that diocese wants to engage you in this matter. With all due respect, so what? Bishop Rhoades is under no obligation to submit to your personal (and not particularly clear or helpful) litmus test for orthodoxy, especially since he hasn’t said or done anything that should raise a legitimate concern in that regard."
Lionel,
ReplyDeleteI read your two questions. I've chosen not to answer them because I believe that answering them would only encourage your continued inappropriate behavior and your disconnect from reality. You've exhibited a complete inability or unwillingness to understand that you have no authority and that no one is required respond to your personal inquisition.
If you decide to violate the rules of Catholic charity by concluding that I must therefore be a heretic, then that's up to you.
{The following is the first part of a comment I posted previously. I was told that it was apparently lost in cyber-space, so I'm reposting it again. The second part of did get posted above (time 11:19 pm), but now it's out of order, so I will re-post it again below so that it follows in the correct order}
ReplyDeleteLionel,
In other words, the answer to all three of my questions is "no", exactly as I thought.
1) Can you prove that Bishop Rhoades personally received and read this specific statement about non Catholic religions being paths to salvation?
No.
2) And, if so, can you prove that he actually refused to agree that other religions aren’t paths to salvation?
No.
3) And if so, can you then prove that he refused to answer specifically because he actually believes that other religions are paths to salvation?
No.
You wrote, "Refusal to affirm the dogma or a Catholic teaching when asked is a denial."
Let me try to explain it again, Lionel. You don't know that Bishop Rhoades "refused" to affirm **anything** because you don't even know whether he received and reviewed your email. And even if you did know that the bishop himself received and reviewed your email (which you don't), you would still need to verify that he refused to answer specifically because he actually believes that other religions are paths to salvation. You have no proof of that, either.
As I already pointed out, the vicar general for Harrisburg said plainly why he had no interest in communicating with you. He concluded that you were just trying to get attention and create discord. Considering your and Sungenis' behavior, that was a very reasonable conclusion to reach.
You wrote, "I did not call [Bishop Rhoades] a heretic."
And I didn't say that you actually used the word "heretic" in your email, Lionel. I said that you basically accused him of being a heretic, and you did. You sent out an accusation to all the priests of the Diocese of Harrisburg accusing Bishop Rhoades of changing the doctrine of the Church on salvation. The "subject line" of your email to the priests of the Diocese of Harrisburg was "BISHOP RHOADES CHANGING CHURCH TEACHING ON SALVATION".
What is that other than basically accusing him of being a heretic? Do you really still have no sense of how ridiculous, rash and counterproductive that stunt was and why most people would naturally decide to have nothing further to do with you as a result?
You mentioned your interactions at the Catholics United for the Faith, so I searched their website and this is what I found:
http://www.cufblog.org/?p=324
I had to smile when I read what the president of CUF wrote to you because it was almost exactly what I've been writing to you here.
Leon Suprenant wrote, "Lionel, as you have admitted elsewhere, Bishop Rhoades provided orthodox responses to the questions that were posted to him in the context of the unfortunate Bob Sungenis controversy. Your questions or issues are slightly different, and no one in that diocese wants to engage you in this matter. With all due respect, so what? Bishop Rhoades is under no obligation to submit to your personal (and not particularly clear or helpful) litmus test for orthodoxy, especially since he hasn’t said or done anything that should raise a legitimate concern in that regard."
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteLionel,
ReplyDeleteIn other words, the answer to all three of my questions is "no", exactly as I thought.
1) Can you prove that Bishop Rhoades personally received and read this specific statement about non Catholic religions being paths to salvation?
No.
2) And, if so, can you prove that he actually refused to agree that other religions aren’t paths to salvation?
No.
3) And if so, can you then prove that he refused to answer specifically because he actually believes that other religions are paths to salvation?
No.
You wrote, "Refusal to affirm the dogma or a Catholic teaching when asked is a denial."
Let me try to explain it again, Lionel. You don't know that Bishop Rhoades "refused" to affirm **anything** because you don't even know whether he received and reviewed your email. And even if you did know that the bishop himself received and reviewed your email (which you don't), you would still need to verify that he refused to answer specifically because he actually believes that other religions are paths to salvation. You have no proof of that, either.
As I already pointed out, the vicar general for Harrisburg said plainly why he had no interest in communicating with you. He concluded that you were just trying to get attention and create discord. Considering your and Sungenis' behavior, that was a very reasonable conclusion to reach.
(Continued) ...
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, "I did not call [Bishop Rhoades] a heretic."
And I didn't say that you actually used the word "heretic" in your email, Lionel. I said that you basically accused him of being a heretic, and you did. You sent out an accusation to all the priests of the Diocese of Harrisburg accusing Bishop Rhoades of changing the doctrine of the Church on salvation. The "subject line" of your email to the priests of the Diocese of Harrisburg was "BISHOP RHOADES CHANGING CHURCH TEACHING ON SALVATION".
What is that other than basically accusing him of being a heretic? Do you really still have no sense of how ridiculous, rash and counterproductive that stunt was and why most people would naturally decide to pay no further attention to you as a result?
You mentioned your interactions at the Catholics United for the Faith, so I searched their website and this is what I found:
http://www.cufblog.org/?p=324
I had to smile when I read what the president of CUF wrote to you because it was almost exactly what I've been writing to you.
Leon Suprenant wrote, "Lionel, as you have admitted elsewhere, Bishop Rhoades provided orthodox responses to the questions that were posted to him in the context of the unfortunate Bob Sungenis controversy. Your questions or issues are slightly different, and no one in that diocese wants to engage you in this matter. With all due respect, so what? Bishop Rhoades is under no obligation to submit to your personal (and not particularly clear or helpful) litmus test for orthodoxy, especially since he hasn’t said or done anything that should raise a legitimate concern in that regard."
(continued from above):
ReplyDeleteAnd I just noticed that you admitted at the CUF website, "Bishop Rhoades will personally not answer my questions, nor his Vicar General nor the Deacon in his diocese who teaches Adult Faith nor the lady in charge of religious education. None of the priests respond."
So that even further settles it, Lionel. You've got nothing. So you need to stop criss-crossing the Internet making baseless accusations against this Catholic bishop.
You write, "Bishop Rhodes did not restate the orthodox position...He did not affirm the teachings of the Church. This was the whole issue. Many questions were left unanswered."
No, Lionel, this was *not* "the whole issue." It's *your* issue, but it wasn't Sungenis' issue nor anyone else's issue directly involved in the dispute. Again, neither Sungenis nor the bishop nor the vicar nor anyone else directly involved ever even *mentioned* EENS. Only *you* keep mentioning it, Lionel.
You write, "I am only pointing out to the teachings of the Church."
No, Lionel, that's not "only" what you're doing. You're presuming to read people's minds and then publicly condemning them based on your own negative imaginings. Again, you're no one in particular, and anyone can feel free to ignore your demands for answers without therefore being even suspect of heresy, let alone being condemned for it. So, please, enough with the Kanonical Kangaroo Kourt. Capisce?
(Continued) ...
ReplyDeleteNow, before I go, please consider a couple of other suggestions from a brother in Christ. I'm going to assume that your intentions are good, but that you're either very confused or misguided.
Bishops are extraordinarily busy people who have many responsibilities and pressures. Your job is not to be the doctrinal over-seer of bishops or popes. You have enough to do watching over yourself and your family. The only questions you should be asking a bishop about doctrinal matters are those designed to help you and your family grow in faith and come closer to the Lord. And if you don't get an answer, make sure to consider the most charitable possibilities rather than rushing to rash, negative conclusions.
God bless.
P.S. - I was saddened to notice that you've decided to just go right back to plastering more baseless accusation in the comments box. I don't know what else I can do to help you, Lionel. You're completely out of line. But, as I wrote above, I knew it was going to be hard to help someone who does what you do to bishops and even popes. If you attend a local Catholic parish, I suggest you print this discussion out and bring it to your priest and see what he says to you about it.
{{The following comment was lost in cyberspace. It was supposed to be part of the series above, appearing right after these words:
ReplyDelete"As I already pointed out, the vicar general for Harrisburg said plainly why he had no interest in communicating with you. He concluded that you were just trying to get attention and create discord. Considering your and Sungenis' behavior, that was a very reasonable conclusion to reach."}}
Lionel, you wrote, "I did not call [Bishop Rhoades] a heretic."
And I didn't say that you actually used the word "heretic" in your email. I said that you basically accused him of being a heretic, and you did. You sent out an accusation to all the priests of the Diocese of Harrisburg accusing Bishop Rhoades of changing the doctrine of the Church on salvation. The "subject line" of your email to the priests of the Diocese of Harrisburg was "BISHOP RHOADES CHANGING CHURCH TEACHING ON SALVATION".
What is that other than basically accusing him of being a heretic? Do you really still have no sense of how ridiculous, rash and counterproductive that stunt was and why most people would naturally decide to pay no further attention to you as a result?
You mentioned your interactions with the Catholics United for the Faith organization, so I searched their website and this is what I found:
http://www.cufblog.org/?p=324
I smiled when I read what their president wrote to you because it was so much like what I've been writing to you.
He wrote, "Lionel, as you have admitted elsewhere, Bishop Rhoades provided orthodox responses to the questions that were posted to him in the context of the unfortunate Bob Sungenis controversy. Your questions or issues are slightly different, and no one in that diocese wants to engage you in this matter. With all due respect, so what? Bishop Rhoades is under no obligation to submit to your personal (and not particularly clear or helpful) litmus test for orthodoxy, especially since he hasn’t said or done anything that should raise a legitimate concern in that regard."
{{To continue in the correct sequence, please now return to the comment above that starts with these words:
"And I just noticed that you admitted at the CUF website, "Bishop Rhoades will personally not answer my questions, nor his Vicar General nor the Deacon in his diocese who teaches Adult Faith nor the lady in charge of religious education. None of the priests respond." "}}
BISHOP KEVIN RHOADES DENIES THE CATHOLIC FAITH
ReplyDeleteI have been sent a link saying that Bishop Kevin Rhoades affirms the orthodox teachings of the Catholic Church.(Grant has the same message)
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/bishop-rhoades-sets-record-straight_21.html
In the four points mentioned in this link Bishop Rhoades says he believes that Christ established a new eternal covenant through his own death and resurrection. There are no two covenants one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles. Since Jesus is the only Saviour and saved all though his Body the Church. Salvation is possible for all through the grace of Jesus.The bishop does not say that Judaism is not a path to salvation and that Jews need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation. He could be implying that all are saved through Jesus. All Jews are saved in general in their religion through Jesus and the Catholic Church and so there is no need to convert.
In the second point he repeats the same message and says that he does not believe anyone can reach heaven without the mediation of Jesus Christ. Again he could imply that all Jews are saved in their religion through the mediation of Jesus Christ.
In the third point he says that he does not believe that the Jewish People can be saved by their own covenant apart from Jesus Christ. Again he denies the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Dominus Iesus 20 etc. He refuses to say that Jews need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.
In the fourth point he says he believes that the Church is called to bring the Gospel to all people. The Church’s missionary activity he says must be marked for the peoples of other religions and their religious freedom. This of course would preclude the need for them to convert or are our asking them to do so, out of respect for them.
This is a classic denial of the Catholic Faith by Bishop Kevin Rhoades the present bishop of Fort Wayne Bend, Indiana.
CONTINUED
continued
ReplyDeleteBishop Kevin Rhoades is unable to say that Jews need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation (to avoid Hell). He still maintains vaguely that Jesus is necessary for salvation. So one can believe that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are the ordinary means of salvation and so Jews do not have to convert into the Catholic Church.They are saved in general through Jesus and the Church is the lie. The ordinary means of salvation is not invincible ignorance etc but Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.(LG 14, AG 7).
Bishop Rhoades could not even answer something as basic as ‘Are non Catholic religions paths to salvation? ’ (Dominus Iesus 20, CDF, Notification on Fr. Jacques Dupuis S.J).
Then there is the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, thrice defined. He still cannot affirm it in public and secondly considers those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire as possible exceptions to the dogma. This would mean that the baptism of desire is visible and so an exception to the dogma and that we know of explicit cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance. One could phone or meet them.
This is the heresy of Cushingism. It was Cardinal Richard Cushing, Archbishop of Boston who said that there was salvation outside the church implying that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are explicitly known to us, for them to be exceptions to the dogma.
There were also three points asked of Bishop Kevin Rhoades,Michael Forrest and others. They posted these three questions on the blog Robert Sungenis and the Jews but never answered them.
1) Does the Catholic Church teach that non Catholic religions, Hindus, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam etc are not paths to salvation (to go to Heaven and avoid Hell)? YES
2) Does the Catholic Church teach that Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water are needed for all people in general, barring the exceptions (invincible ignorance etc ) for salvation? YES
3) When you meet a non Catholic can you tell him or her that he or she needs Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water to go to Heaven and avoid Hell? YES
Scott Hahn and Daphne McLeod have answered yes, to these three questions.
-Lionel Andrades
Will Bishops Allen Vigneron and Kevin Rhoades give permission for a website against Michael Vorris?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/will-bishops-allen-vigneron-and-kevin.html
Questions for the Canon Lawyers :Can Archbishop Allen Vigneron and Bishop Kevin Rhoades be considered Catholic if they refuse to affirm in public the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/questions-for-canon-lawyers-can.html
Friday, January 20, 2012
ReplyDeleteThe issue is also the Eucharist in the diocese of Fort Wayne South Bend, Indiana, USA
A comment on a website says the bishop canonically has the right to ask Real Catholic TV.com to remove the name Catholic.
The issue is also the Eucharist in the diocese of Fort Wayne South Bend, Indiana, USA.Does the bishop have the right to offer Holy Mass according to Canon Law? Is the Mass he offers a public sin?
In the Nicene Creed we pray: “I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin”. The baptism of water is needed to remove Original Sin. The baptism of water is given to adults with Catholic Faith.
The bishop at Fort Wayne South Bend cannot say in public that Judaism is not a path to salvation and that Jews need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell (for salvation).
He is denying the Nicene Creed and the Athanasius Creed.He is also not affirming the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and is putting aside Dominus Iesus and other magisterial texts including Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14).This is public manifest heresy, of the first class, it entails the Creed.
In this sin the bishop has the right to offer Holy Mass and canonically call himself a ‘Catholic’ ?
St. Teresa of Avila saw Jesus in pain when a priest in mortal sin held the Eucharist at Holy Mass. St. Faustina Kowalski saw Jesus in pain when a lady in mortal sin received the Eucharist at Holy Mass.
The issue is the Eucharist. Canon Law does not permit the bishop to offer Holy Mass or receive the Eucharist.
I am just a layman. I am not judging him. I am just pointing out to what the Church teaches.The teaching of the Church is the same for priests, bishops, cardinals and the pope.The Sacrament of Reconciliation is available for all.
I had written to the bishop and the issue is now all over the internet. It is up to him to affirm the Catholic Faith as a bishop. He can answer the four questions asked of him.
Are not prayers of reparation needed here?
-Lionel Andrades.
CONTINUED
continued
ReplyDeleteCANON LAWYER IN INDIANA NEEDS TO BE ASKED : IS BISHOP KEVIN RHOADES JURIDICALLY A CATHOLIC ?
Evidence of the Fort Wayne Bend bishops denial of the Catholic Faith is on a website.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/canon-lawyer-in-indiana-needs-to-be.html
BISHOP KEVIN RHOADES DENIES THE CATHOLIC FAITH
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/bishop-kevin-rhoades-denies-catholic.html
JEWISH CATHOLIC DAY OF REFLECTION TODAY
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/jewish-catholic-day-of-reflection-day.html
Will Bishops Allen Vigneron and Kevin Rhoades give permission for a website against Michael Vorris?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/will-bishops-allen-vigneron-and-kevin.html
Questions for the Canon Lawyers:Can Archbishop Allen Vigneron and Bishop Kevin Rhoades be considered Catholic if they refuse to affirm in public the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/questions-for-canon-lawyers-can.html
It's a Free Country.. : A Catholic who rejects a defined dogma like outside the church no salvation is automatically excomunicated. He has no right to use the word 'Catholic'.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/its-free-country.html
ERRORS IN THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: OUTSIDE THE CHURCH NO SALVATION
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search?q=Errors+in+the+Catechism+of+the+Catholic+Church
ERRORS IN THE CATECHISM ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search?q=Errors+in+the+Catechism+of+the+Catholic+Church
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church why did Cardial Joseph Ratzinger not mention that the baptism of desire is not a defacto exception to the dogma outside the church no salvation nor to Vatican Council II ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/in-catechism-of-catholic-church-why-did.html
LIONEL ANDRADES PUBLICLY DENIES AND DEFIES CATHOLIC TEACHING ON RASH JUDGMENT AND CHARITY
ReplyDeleteRash Judgment CCC 2478:
To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.
This teaching is well known to all true Catholics. We read from St. Ignatius of Loyola:
"it is necessary to suppose that every good Christian is more ready to put a good interpretation on another's statement than to condemn it as false. If an orthodox construction cannot be put on a proposition, the one who made it should be asked how he understands it. If he is in error, he should be corrected with all kindness. If this does not suffice, all appropriate means should be used to bring him to a correct interpretation, and so defend the proposition from error." (Rule #22, The Spiritual Exercises)
And from Thomas A Kempis we read:
"He who is in perfect peace suspects no man. But he who is discontented and disturbed is agitated by various suspicions; he neither has rest himself, nor does he permit others to rest. Many times he says that which he should not say, and leaves undone that which it were best for him to do. He considers what others ought to do, and neglects that which his is bound to do himself. Have, therefore, a zeal in the first place over yourself, and then you may justly exercise zeal toward your neighbor. You know well how to excuse and gloss over your own deeds, but you will not accept the excuses of others. It were more just for you to accuse yourself, and to excuse your brother. If you wish to be borne with, bear also with others. See how far you still are from true charity and humility...There are some who know how to live in peace and also enjoy peace with others. And there are others who do not have peace themselves, nor suffer others to enjoy peace; they are troublesome to others. "
(The Imitation of Christ)
Lionel has been repeatedly corrected about his error, yet he publicly persists in it. According to Canon 915, does this disqualify Lionel Andrades from receiving Holy Communion? Can we get an opinion from a Canon Lawyer?
Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and **others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.**
Furthermore, as Lionel has refused to acknowledge this Teaching, he subsequently denies it, therefore he is also a heretic.
Lionel,
ReplyDeleteLeaving aside the question of whether or not you should be allowed to receive Holy Communion for the moment...
You said, "Refusal to affirm the dogma or a Catholic teaching when asked is a denial."
I just told you directly that I refuse to answer your two question about EENS. Unlike Bishop Rhoades, you now know for a fact that I received what you wrote. Unlike Bishop Rhoades, you now know for a fact that I actually refused to answer you.
So, are you going to come out and accuse me of being a heretic or not?
According to you, it doesn't matter that I already explained exactly why I refuse to answer you (just as the vicar general of Harrisburg made it clear why you've been ignored). According to you, my refusal alone is enough justification to judge me to be a heretic.
So, why the hesitation, Lionel?
Rash Judgment CCC 2478:
ReplyDeleteTo avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Grant are you judging me ? Rash or not ? Is this not a judgement ?
I have quoted you the Church teachings and you and the bishop cannot answer them.
Once again : Does the Catholic Church teach that Judaism is not a path to salvation and that Jews need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell (for salvation) ?
I am just asking the question. When you do not reply as a Catholic you provide the answer.
TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC ORGANISATIONS BEING MONITORED IN ROME
ReplyDeleteYesterday was the third time I noticed it. Plainclothes policemen at Holy Mass in Rome. Traditional Catholic organisations seem under their surveillance. Once a security police official identified himself to another person in my presence.
A few years back politicians Silvio Berlusconi, former Prime Minister of Italy, Gianfranco Fini, his Interior Minister and the Foreign Minister Franco Frattini welcomed Abraham Foxman of the Jewish Anti Defamation League. According to the ADL website Gianfranco Fini presented him with an award. They also agreed to implement the ADL anti Semitism laws in Italy. Those laws are now being enforced and are being used to control religious expression and to change Catholic teaching in Italy. There is a constant threat to Catholics.
A priest who offers the Traditional Latin Mass in Rome told me even though there is no case of the baptism of desire known to us, he would not affirm the traditional teaching of Fr. Leonard Feeney. He will not say in public that the Catholic Church officially teaches, in magisterial texts that Judaism, or other religions, is not a path to salvation and that Jews need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell.This priest is no dissenter. He is aware of the Jewish Left lobby in Italy. There could be anti Semitism or other leftist laws used against him. He could be transferred or suspended by the Vatican hierarchy. The Vatican and the Rome Vicariate also protects itself.
The ADL works with law enforcing agencies in Europe and the USA to enforce anti Semitism laws. Holocaust denial is only a part of these laws which are being misused similar to the Blasphemy Law in Muslim countries. The daily newspaper of the Conference of the Catholic Bishops of Italy, Avvenire has criticized the misuse of the blasphemy laws.Never have I read a criticism of the anti Semitism law. Avvenire is protecting itself.Now the Traditional Latin Mass is being monitored.
The Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews prayed at the Traditional Latin Mass is no more there in its original form. It was considered anti Semitic by the Jewish Left lobby. The pope assured the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and their supporters that Jews do not have to convert in the present times . This is contrary to the Bible. He made the statement to avoid the threat of violence. Catholic politicians were silent, that is, if they knew what was happening.
Also in the Bishop Richard Williamson case the pope averted threats to the Vatican under anti Semitism laws. Bishop Richard Williamson could not be accepted as a Catholic bishop even though he has violated no church law except those created by the Jewish Left.In future they can create new laws saying the Bible and Jesus are anti Semitic.
Catholic apologists all over the world, like the pope and his Curia are changing Church teaching on the Jews to protect themselves from anti Semitism charges. Other apologists are targeted by their bishops, when they say that the church teaches that Judaism is not a path to salvation and that Jews need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell. American apologists Robert Sungenis and Michael Voris were told by their bishops not to use the word Catholic.
CONTINUED
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/traditional-catholic-organisations.html
continued
ReplyDeleteCatholic apologists all over the world, like the pope and his Curia are changing Church teaching on the Jews to protect themselves from anti Semitism charges. Other apologists are targeted by their bishops, when they say that the church teaches that Judaism is not a path to salvation and that Jews need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell. American apologists Robert Sungenis and Michael Voris were told by their bishops not to use the word Catholic.
The Archdiocese of Detroit USA mentioned that there was a long feud with Michael Voris before he was asked to remove the name Catholic from Real Catholic TV.com. The issue was the Jewish Left which the archdiocese does not mention. Similarly Bishop Kevin Rhoades, the former bishop of Harrisburg, Pennsylavia, USA asked apologist Robert Sungenis to remove the name Catholic from his website Catholic Apologetics International. The issue was the Jews and the threat came form the Jewish Left. Bishop Kevin Rhoades until today cannot say in public that Judaism is not a path to salvation and that Jews need to convert to avoid Hell.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Doctrinal Committee stated that dialogue could include mission. The Jewish Left protested. The USCCB deleted the reference to mission.
The Bible says Jews need to convert for salvation and these bishops are not affirming this teaching out of fear of the influential Jewish Left. Bishop Allen Vigneon,bishop of the Archdiocese of Detroit and Bishop Kevin Rhoades,Bishop of Forth Wayne South Bend, Indiana are not able to proclaim a Biblical teaching and are correcting Voris and Sungenis who have been affirming same teaching.
Bishop Richard Williamson has said in public that Jesus need to convert for salvation. The National Catholic Reporter criticized Bishop Williamson just as they have criticized Real Catholic TV. They will not mention that the issue between Real Catholic TV.com with the Archdiocese of Detroit is, the Jews.
If the Jewish Left in the USA filed an anti Semitic charge against Voris and Sungenis for their Biblical view, the bishops could disown them and protect themself.
The Catholic organisation which is monitored in Rome is publicly critical of Freemasonry in the Jewish Left. They hold the Biblical teaching on Jews. Probably at some time in the future there could be restrictions placed on them by the Italian police.
Lionel Andrades
Lionel,
ReplyDeleteI thought I would try to help you to see what you were doing to others by applying your own standards to your behavior, but it's clear you didn't understand. So I'll just repeat the same advice and admonishment I gave you earlier:
Your job is not to be the doctrinal over-seer of bishops or popes. You clearly have enough to do watching over yourself (and your family, if you have one). The only questions you should be asking a bishop about doctrinal matters are those designed to help you and your family grow in faith and come closer to the Lord. And if you don't get an answer, make sure to consider the most charitable possibilities rather than rushing to rash, negative conclusions.
You've been criss-crossing the Internet on blog after blog, violating charity, jumping to unjustified conclusions and making one rash accusation after another against bishops, popes and laymen.
Perhaps your most ridiculous recent statement was, "The issue was the Jewish Left which the archdiocese does not mention."
So, in your Kanonical Kangaroo Kourt, if it's about Jews, it's about Jews and if it's not about Jews it's about Jews.
At least one begins to better understand the reason for your intense affinity for Robert Sungenis and Bishop Richard Williamson.
In all charity, you really should find something appropriate and healthy to do with yourself, Lionel.
Your job is not to be the doctrinal over-seer of bishops or popes. You clearly have enough to do watching over yourself (and your family, if you have one).
ReplyDeleteLionel:
I am a Catholic I am affirming the Catholic Faith.
If someone asks me if the Catholic Church teaches that Judaism and other religions are not paths to salvation I say Yes this is what the Catholic Church teaches and this is what I believe.
If someone asks me :Do all Jews need to enter the Catholic Church with no exception to avoid Hell (for salvation)? I says Yes and this is what the Catholic Church teaches.
You and the bishops are unable to answer these two fundamental questions about Catholic teaching.
Perhaps your most ridiculous recent statement was, "The issue was the Jewish Left which the archdiocese does not mention."
ReplyDeleteSo, in your Kanonical Kangaroo Kourt, if it's about Jews, it's about Jews and if it's not about Jews it's about Jews.
Lionel:
Please see the earlier report
TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC ORGANISATIONS MONITORED IN ROME
It is we ordinary Catholics who are before the judges in anti Semitism cases.
We canot affirm basic Church teachings without the anti Semitism threat.
This is a great evil of our time and you and your freind Ed Hannenberg on the blog Good Saints are supporting it.
The denial of this Catholic teaching is heresy a mortal sin.
Please access Google for St.Teresa of Avila's and St.Faustina Kowalski's description of Hell.
You have been informed and yet you knowingly deny the Catholic Faith in public.
Lionel,
ReplyDeleteYou write, "You have been informed and yet you knowingly deny the Catholic Faith in public."
No, I knowingly deny that I have to answer Lionel Andrades because I believe it would only encourage him to continue to misbehave as a Grand Inquisitor of popes, bishops and laymen. That's a very different thing and I said it very plainly before, Lionel. It's dishonest to say that I've knowingly denied the Catholic Faith in public.
You've also been ignored by the Diocese of Harrisburg and the vicar there said exactly why: you and your friend Sungenis seem only to want to sow discord and get attention. You sent emails to the priests of the Diocese of Harrisburg basically accusing the bishop of being a heretic.
As a result of this ridiculous stunt, no one there at the diocese will communicate with you, not because they are secret heretics who deny EENS.
As I've said, you see the world through the lens of EENS. Everything is about EENS for you. You read it into situations where it doesn't belong without justification.
I'm sure there are some situations in which a denial of EENS really is the central problem. You're obviously convinced that it's a huge problem where you are (Rome), so this has become a personal thing for you. But there's no good evidence that it is the central problem in these specific cases you keep writing about (Sungenis and Voris). You're reading EENS into these situations where it doesn't belong.
You say that you know the truth about the Church's teaching on EENS. That's great. But it's not your job to play Grand Inquisitor of bishops, popes and laymen. It's not for you to read people's minds and jump to rash conclusions when they don't answer you. Following the Church's teaching, you should consider the many more charitable explanations, including the possibility of faults committed by you.
Not to be unkind, but you aren't a good communicator, Lionel (perhaps because English isn't your native language), and all you have managed to do is to make people decide to ignore you. I'm one of the few people who will even discuss anything with you at all about this (Ed Hahnenberg being the other).
Why do you think that is? Because everyone is a heretic and they're afraid of being exposed by you? Or is it more likely because you're out of line and aren't a very good communicator?
Listen, I've really tried to help you. I think you probably mean well and you're honestly trying to be heroic in some way, but you're way over the line and you're helping no one.
It would be a good idea for you to find a spiritual director, Lionel. Listen to him. I would also strongly suggest speaking with a local priest as well. Show him print-outs of what you're doing here and across the Internet. See what he says.
Now, I suspect you'll want to have the last word.
God bless.
Grant says:
ReplyDeleteYou write, "You have been informed and yet you knowingly deny the Catholic Faith in public."
No, I knowingly deny that I have to answer Lionel Andrades because I believe it would only encourage him to continue to misbehave as a Grand Inquisitor of popes, bishops and laymen. That's a very different thing and I said it very plainly before, Lionel. It's dishonest to say that I've knowingly denied the Catholic Faith in public.
Lionel: You have denied the Faith and are also judging me. Also you cannot provide any Church documents you support your slander of Sungenis and others.
Grant says:
You've also been ignored by the Diocese of Harrisburg and the vicar there said exactly why: you and your friend Sungenis seem only to want to sow discord and get attention. You sent emails to the priests of the Diocese of Harrisburg basically accusing the bishop of being a heretic.
Lionel:
The e-mails sent to the Bishop and others was asking him three questions on the Catholic Faith. Those three questions were answered by Scott Hahn and Daphne Mcleod. They were not ashamed of their Catholic Faith nor afraid of Anti Semitism laws. They also know the Faith and are able to express it.
Grant:
You say that you know the truth about the Church's teaching on EENS. That's great. But it's not your job to play Grand Inquisitor of bishops, popes and laymen.
Lionel:
The issue is the Eucharist for us believers. It may be meaningless to you, I do not know, but it is important for those of us who understand.
Grant:
It's not for you to read people's minds and jump to rash conclusions when they don't answer you.
Lionel:
Only you have that privilege ? O.K
Grant:
It would be a good idea for you to find a spiritual director, Lionel.
Lionel:
And if the Spiritual Director agreed with me what would you do ? Not judge him ?
I have quoted priests on my blog saying that we do not know any case of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.
WE DO NOT KNOW ANYONE SAVED WITH THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE OR INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE SO EVERYONE NEEDS TO ENTER THE CHURCH AS DON BOSCO TAUGHT- Salesian Rector and Parish priest in Rome
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/we-do-not-know-anyone-saved-with.html
VATICAN COUNCIL II AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS- Fr. Davide Carbonaro
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/vatican-council-ii-affirms-cantate.html
Its a mortal sin to deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is a sacrilege to receive the Eucharist in this condition- Fr. Gabrielle, priest of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/its-mortal-sin-to-deny-dogma-extra.html#links
THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OF- Fr.George Puthoor
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/there-is-no-baptism-of-desire-that-we.html#links