Recreational Heresy Now Officially Legal in California Parishes

January 2, 2018 by  
Filed under Politics

 

Roman Catholic dioceses in California began allowing recreational heresy Monday in what has been seen as a milestone in the mainstreaming of dissent.

Lines formed outside churches licensed to allow heresy hours before Mass and CCD times, and RCIA teachers said they had stocked up in expectation of huge demand for new types of heresy.

“There’re bigger crowds here than I saw at all the Christmas masses put together this year,”  said pastor of St. Basil Catholic Church, Matthew Dreyer, whose Legalize Dissent campaign has garnered thousands of followers on social media. “We’ve had dissent for decades now, but we’ve been marginalized to more liberal parishes. Now we can finally come out of the shadows and into the rad trad parishes.”

At one Catholic church in San Diego, hundreds lined up for hours to have a chance to be among the first to teach heresy at an RCIA or CCD class at a liturgically orthodox parish.

“There’s really nothing that the priests can do now to stop it,” said California native, Connie Schick. “The USCCB gave us a voice—they gave us a vote and we did it. Finally, we did it!”

Speaking with EOTT, Dreyer said he expected a 25% bump in dissent overnight, but that it could be as high as 50%.

California is the sixth state to allow the use of recreational heresy, and as one of the largest concentrations of Catholics in the United States, it has been widely seen as the corner stone on which legalization of mainstream heterodoxy will be built in the country.

  • Sr. Mary Brigid

    Be forewarned, casual heretics: compared to typical “street” Pelagianism, this new stuff is much stronger…try a small and steady dose of solipsism and you’ll barely glimpse purgatory in the rear view mirror on your rocket sled to hell.

    • Hotrod1962

      Sister, we had that problem at our parish a few years ago. Several Pelagiasts were found selling recreational heresy to our school children and even were so bold as to approach our parishioners after mass.
      Father Vinny called the Knights, after those 4th degree swords were sharpened, those guys disappeared……for good.

      • christopherschaefer

        I’ll bet they’ll never be able to pull that off with the new 4th degree beenie uniform.

        • Hotrod1962

          I was a kid when my Dad was installed 4th Degree. The sash, the plumed hat, the sword….pretty cool. I have his sword now.

          • Casper

            Yeah, those new uniforms suck wind. KofC really screwed that up. How ya gonna fight heresy without a sword?

          • Hotrod1962

            Had to google 4th degree uniform….agree…not very ceremonial.

          • Monk
          • Hotrod1962

            Only proves my point……the old uniform is also a chick magnet.

          • Rose Lincoln

            Ouch!

          • pat

            That’s the liturgical dance team.

          • HermitTalker

            Reminds me “I will raise you up.” Even at my age.

          • Monk

            Men “salute” that way more often than thy care to admit. Corporal Concupiscence, sir!

          • HermitTalker

            Cold showers are recommended. For a monk you are very aware.

          • samton909

            I think the one in the middle is Harvey Weinstein

          • Richard Mondak

            A .380 fits neatly into the pocket of the blazer. Just an observation.

          • HermitTalker

            Does a beretta fit in the bra?

          • Richard Mondak

            A ‘Biretta’? You have smash it to make it fit.
            Oh, you meant as in the Beretta Pico .380? Probably, but you have to smash it to make the gun fit.
            There are concealed carry undergarments for the ladies but I’m not sure about a mansierre / “the Bro”.

          • HermitTalker

            Yes BERETTA Concealed weapon.

  • pat

    What’s a little heresy every now and then anyway, I mean, who am I to judge?

  • LMNTerry

    I need medical heresy for the scales on my eyes

    • Heinz

      I’ve heard that with enough therapeutical heresy you can live a happy life even with a log in the eye.
      For some a much better solution than to actually remove the log.

  • HermitTalker

    Who decides what is heresy since the Bishop of Rome’s person and teachings are routinely rejected by Groupthink Loonies

    • Casper

      I can never quite decide whether or not to block you. Because sometimes it’s almost fun to read your posts.

      • William of Orange

        A laugh-riot for sure.

      • HermitTalker

        Keep enjoying me. Too many serious people
        on Here Casper. Pat must live in a parallel Church, not the one Francis presides over.

        • pat

          they still call that a church? Most people just call it the Rome office of the DNC.

      • VeilOfTiers

        Almost is the operative word. 😉

      • samton909

        It’s better than drugs.

    • pat

      When he gets over his little hissy fits and starts explaining what he means, and not just using the “because I said so” approach, then we can leave it to people who actually know the Faith (like Cd. Meuller etc) to decide.
      He’s only the lowly bishop of Rome when there are cameras around. When someone disagrees with him…it’s quite different. But then all liberals are that way aren’t they?

    • pat

      groupthink – is that what they’re calling unity in faith these days?

      is that like calling heresy – diversity, or shacking up – virtual marriage?

      or terrorists – video critics?

      • HermitTalker

        You did not respond to my post. Please try again. I defended the Bishop of Rome against his heretical accusers, Blessed 2018

        • pat

          these days, heresy is in the eye of the beholder isn’t it?

          some say that gay marriage is heresy, others say who am I to judge, and that it is a valid faith tradition among the separated brethren.

          if you have one pope on one side and all the others (not to mention the rest of history) on the other side…. are you really comfortable in saying all them were heretics?

          • HermitTalker

            The Bishop of Rome with the entire history and study and testimony of the Fathers, the entire Tradition as testified by laity, clergy and hierarchy is the sure Jesus guarantee of His Truth. Getting side-tracked into old distractions does Jesus’ Church no favours. Casting aspersions on this Pope with gossip is a testimony to the critics’ ignorance and evidence of immature Faith.

          • pat

            it takes a real intellectual to grasp the truth in some of the things coming out of the church today doesn’t it. To quote a famous person… “you have to be highly educated to be so stupid.”

    • samton909

      For those who don’t know, “Groupthink Loonies” is the name of Hermit Talker’s band.

      • HermitTalker

        Not accurate. We are the Papal Guards. Swiss and other nationalities. We duel with heretics and poke fun at Loonies.

        • pat

          No one in who’s up on things uses the words Pope or papal any more. it’s just bishop of Rome. get with the program.

          • HermitTalker

            It’s who is up, correctly. The title is Bishop of Rome. Papal and Pope are used .As in papal posse used by semi-heretic R. Arroyo and his infallible-talking three stooges on EWTN. Sorry to challenge you pat. Get out some more when the weather warms up. Cold freezes the thinking mind.

          • pat

            EWTN certainly is not ‘with the program’, they don’t know all of the new ‘un-words’, they still use double plus un-good words. (they still say ‘mass’ and that was un-worded even before the Francis’ reign of terror) Obviously, you know they’re out of touch, why cite them as authority?

          • HermitTalker

            Correction. I cited T.W.O. as source for papal posse. Do you fill in all the holes you dig or just bury yourself in them. Missa is Mass. So is Synaxis, Divine Liturgy, Paschal Mystery, Aifreann, Offering, Irish. Anaphora. Deinst, Sacrum Convivium.

          • pat

            Those terms went out of use when confessionals became reconciliation rooms the Old Testament became the Hebrew scriptures. We don’t call people heretics anymore either, so Mr. Arroyo has grounds to bring you up on charges of hurting his feelings. Francis has un-worded ‘pope’ and only uses it to threaten misbehaving conservatives. Otherwise you may simply refer to him as his humbleness, or bishop of Rome.

          • HermitTalker

            Aye you may be right.

  • Once again, EOT is painfully close to the truth.

  • christopherschaefer

    No surprise here. California has more Jesuit-run parishes than any state in the USA, including the well-known Blessed Sacrament parish, “a wonderfully diverse community” in Hollywood.

    • Frank Hammond

      Hey – the SJ’s like living in nice places! Once they do their time at Marquette and Creighton they move to a luxury house in a sunny climate.

      • samton909

        Look up the the “retreat house” that the New York Jesuits use. It is located in New Jersey and is one of the biggest mansions I have ever seen. The web site touts the grandeur and magnificence of the “retreat mansion”

    • Richard Mondak

      I have a second cousin who is a Jesuit and was initially assigned to the Jesuit house in LA with a groovy address on Sunset Boulevard. Although not the “77 Sunset Strip” (snap, snap) location, we po’ folks from Western PA were impressed.

  • GrumpyYoungMan

    Meh…legalizing heresy takes all the fun out of it

  • Casper

    The Institute for the Works of Religion must be very excited about the new level of tithing that is sure to follow!

  • William of Orange

    Here in Toronto we are a little farther along. Recreational heretics used to have to have their needs met illicitly. They would go to storefront outlets for dispensation. These ‘dispensaries’ operated almost like legitimate retailers. There, they could enjoy heresy of all kinds: smokable varieties, edibles, oils, whatever they want. They would be raided from time to time; shut down and then reopen.

    There’s no need for them anymore though. Starting July 1st in Canada, recreational heresy will be legal. Of course, the government will control where and when a person can access heresy; and, they set the minimum age at 19 years.

    What hasn’t been addressed, of course, is all of the other issues related to practicing heretics. How do you keep heresy away from school-age children? What happens if people drive while heretical? Is Catholic heresy a gateway to Presbyterianism? That’s my worry. First, you take out the kneelers; next thing you know, you’re passing the dutchie as the sign of peace.

    NO! You can’t use Doritos as Eucharistic hosts.

    • christopherschaefer

      In Canada, heresy is a public right. For example, quoting Biblical passages related to homosexual behavior is considered a hate crime that will land one in prison; sodomy was recognized by Canada’s Supreme Court as merely “recreational” years ago. And to think that here in the USA we thought it was merely about bakers and cakes.

      • William of Orange

        All I can say to that is: “True, Doh!!!”

    • SJ Man

      Excellent!! As a Canadian, I see what you mean….

  • pat

    Now that you can get your heresy legally at your own parish, do we still need the nuns on the bus? I mean they’re were good at providing clean tracts and things, but now you can get them anywhere.

    • Heinz

      I can imagine that they’ll have to sell the bus and will continue to operate from a shappy van, providing full deism or arianism for the harder cases.

      • William of Orange

        I like to freebase my heresy until is schisms into ‘crack’. Damn, one hit o’ that shizz will fry yo orthodoxy bro.

    • Frank Hammond

      We have one Nun left at our Parish. As she gets older she really struggles with changing the wording of the readings every Sunday. When the 2nd reading is a letter from St. Paul she has a rough time changing “men” to people or person, etc.

      • Heinz

        It is quite demanding to do it on the fly. Good thing we have the new translation:

        3 But I want you to realize that the head of every person is Christ, and the head of the person is people. 4 Every person who prays or prophesies with her/his head covered dishonors her/his head. 5 But every person who prays or prophesies with her/his head uncovered dishonors her/his head—it is the same as having her/his head shaved.

        Luckily it’s not more confusing than other passages, like those puzzling ones that seem to indicate that men are still sinful and shouldn’t be.

  • JPC

    Sure, watered-down heresy for the casual heretic will be easy to get but there will always be demand for the really strong stuff which will still be illegal. An OD on Albigensianism is an ugly sight, so parishes had best stock up on Heroxone for emergencies.

  • pat

    Does the pope know about this? Surely he isn’t going to allow heresy to be freely spread around! Why that could lead to all sorts of bad things, like border walls and air conditioners! oh the humanity!

  • Hotrod1962

    OK. I admit it……..I took recreational heresies. I’m not proud…..but……I did see a camel go through the eye of a needle….really cool….dude.

  • Frank Hammond

    Funny line – “orthodox parish in San Diego” No such place exists…

    • Chloe

      St Anne’s

      • Frank Hammond

        Really? I am in SD for trade shows several times a year, I will look it up the next time I am out there. So far, I have had some “interesting Mass experiences” in San Diego…Thanks!

  • samton909

    A bleary eyed Father James Martin passed the “dissent doobie” to a giggling Stephen Colbert, and said “What’s the big deal, man? Like, we Jesuits have been doing that out here in New York for decades”.

  • pat

    Recreational heresy has been considered acceptable for a long time for pastoral or ecumenical reasons.

  • JabbaPapa

    I tried heresy once, but I never breathed it in.

    • HermitTalker

      Wrong end of the body

      • samton909

        Hermit Talker, I told you not to put your cigarettes in there.

        • HermitTalker

          I do not smoke. Not even after intercourse.

          • TomD

            Did you look?

          • HermitTalker

            The original joke was does your (wife) smoke after “it” Rx ” I do not look.” Do not give up your day-job tom D, Stay away from shirk. You shtink.

          • TomD

            The original I heard was “they” didn’t look.

            So, you are not someone’s wife? Sorry, didn’t know, I apologize.

  • Richard Mondak

    Homoousios? Homoiousios? Homowhoisthis?
    Should St Nick get up and slap these CalifArians?

  • LionelAndrades

    JANUARY 12, 2018
    All these years Cardinal Castrillon Hoyes wanted the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) to accept Vatican Council II with Cushingite theology without asking Pope Benedict to recant for this mistake
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/01/all-these-years-cardinal-castrillon.html

    • HermitTalker

      MT 25:36-41 shows Jesus telling us that persons who serve Jesus is the hungry and others whether they are aware or not are Sheep and make it to heaven. One does not have to be formally attached to the Church with -RCC or evangelical or even baptised to belong to the Church -Finding Jesus in other images of God is sufficient. Read Him, ignore nonsense and anti-BXV1 and anti Jewish bigotry as the post above does. Jesus trumps hate-speech every time.

      • LionelAndrades

        This is the truth, in John 3:5 but it would be hate from Jesus for the Jewish Left.
        Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.-John 3:5
        http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/jesus-answered-amen-amen-i-say-to-thee.html

        • HermitTalker

          Did you read MT 25:36-41or do what Bible cherry-pickers do regularly find an irrelevant verse that proves nothing. READ. THINK PRAY ABOUT IT.

          • LionelAndrades

            That was only one passage in John which says non Catholics need to convert for salvation. There are many others.

          • HermitTalker

            Another Bible cherry picking pro-choice heretic. Possibly excused due to ignorance. Jesus said SHEEP get to heaven if they find Him in vulnerable humans. Period. What Correspondence Course did you flunk? Excuse me bluntness but insanity is defined by repeating illiteracy expecting someone to agree.

          • LionelAndrades

            Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation and there are no practical exceptions is Biblical, Traditional and supported by Vatican Council II(AG 7).

          • HermitTalker

            You are intellectually dishonest L.A,

          • LionelAndrades

            Why ? I have cited the Bible to support my view. I have quoted Vatican Council II and you can check the popes and saints statements on Wikipedia affirming exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
            What more do you want?

          • HermitTalker

            Bible MT 25:36-41, Church’s teaching on baptism of desire contradict you. Cite precise Vat Two quote. I taught third level Humanities and Catholic classes post Vat Two.

          • pat

            Certainly nothing to brag about, considering the state of the church today.

          • HermitTalker

            Jesus’ Church has been full of saints and sinners since Jesus was betrayed and will be until He comes back. The illiterate biblically and theologically will also be. Including those who seem to second-guess the H. Spirit and all Popes since Saint J XX111.

          • pat

            You kinda sorta havta wonder why it took the Holy Spirit so long to tell everyone to ignore that part about faith and just go with the good feelings, or to go easy on adultery or to….

          • HermitTalker

            No official magisterial teaching says that. Illiterate critics claim that about Pope Francis

          • pat

            Official magisterial teaching doesn’t matter to the masses, or to Francis apparently. All the masses know is that everything’s ok now. (if a guy goes to church, any church, and has a boyfriend, who can judge, if a woman doesn’t want to breed like a rabbit, who can judge, if a couple is living together, that’s better than marriage)

            And for the pope, he has said often enough that doctrine is oppressive.

          • HermitTalker

            Heresy based on ignorance.

          • pat

            ignorance fed by pride, stubbornness and carelessness

            or would you say that His Humbleness never said those things, and hasn’t made them the pattern of his time as bishop of Rome?

          • Wiffle

            I like how you use “His Humbleness”. It fits, unfortunately.

          • Heinz

            The way I see it, the world becomes more and more hard-hearted. This comes naturally with secularism. The problem is, that under the name of tolerance, hard judgements are made, and “justified” is only he, who can prove his function. There is no place for love and mercy in any secular state definition. Pure rationality leads to such a world. And with a perfectly, humanly just state, injustice runs through the streets.

            The church must always be a counter-point to the evils of society. Even though the natural instinct is to fight fire with fire, show them *their* sin, while they complain about us, Christ teaches us to be ridiculously counter-intuitive and do what seems folly to the world.
            When historians will record, that there was no more evil period in time than at the beginning of the 21st century, I hope that they will also mention, that the catholic church was acting against that trend from the very beginning. They already started focussing extremely on mercy at a time, when most people did not even realize, that the lack of mercy is the worst evil that comes with the absence of God in public society.

            I count myself a catholic not, because I agree with every teaching naturally, but because I assent to church teaching, even if I do not understand it and even feel deep in my prideful and sinful heart, that we should stop cuddling those sinners.

            I see the same problems, that you see. I feel, like we focus too much on mercy, and forget the justice. It seems to me that accepting an unrepenting sinner is equivalent to accepting his sin. As if we were saying to sinners: “Go on sinning, it does not matter.”
            But that is not how it is. If the pope says “This is what the world needs more than anything else”, then I have to shut my mouth and meditate on that, lest I put myself above the promise of the holy spirit.

            Put on a pair of glasses, that sees the pope act purposefully on the very border of “too much”, but does not actually cross it. Some will always interpret him to do so; some happily, some concerned.

            We need mercy from God, though we do not deserve it. Let’s give mercy to sinners that do not deserve it either (or earned it by repenting).
            Even though you are strong and can grow, if somebody points out your sin, most people cannot. They must first be addressed with over-abundant mercy, before they can grow to realize, that they are offending God. Unjustified mercy must be the first step, especially in a world that is mercilessly just!

            (In so far, I can even find it acceptable, to give the Holy Eucharist to sinners (“in special cases”), as long as we don’t say publicly, that sinning does not matter and it is done routinely. And if you look at things, that is exactly what AL + Dubia ultimately boils down to.)

          • HermitTalker

            Delightfully wise faithful post, thank you Heinz. Redeems my respect for this against the unjust and ignorant anti-Pope Francis drivel on here.

          • pat

            When your son comes home and tells you he’s moving in with his boyfriend, and the pope says it alright, or your daughter tells you she’s moving in with her boyfriend, and it’s better than marriage, because the pope said so, or your wife wants to go on the pill, because she doesn’t want to breed like a rabbit, – then tell me again about how all this mercy offensive is actually helping things…

          • HermitTalker

            Which Pope- certainly not Francis of Rome. Did you actually read the beautiful Jesus -like post. Or is ranting against Jesus’ Vicar in your DNA Pat?

          • pat

            Well, again, they’re not sporting “restore all things in Christ” at their pride festivals are they? or anything that came out of Pope Urban IV’s reign or Leo V, so we must be talking about His humbleness the current bishop of Rome. With his – as long as you think you’re ‘searching’ for god – it’s all good.

          • HermitTalker

            There may be a Church of the Perfect on Mars pat but Jesus built His on Earth on Sinners. Were you delivered in the wrong Planet?

          • pat

            oh, the profundity, the self-effacing humility. Do you have any other pearls of wisdom, like about the journey of 1000 steps or the tired and the poor and the huddled masses?
            Back to earth though, Did Jesus tell the woman that her adultery wasn’t a sin? Did he say – “love one another, but if you don’t, it’s not sinful, as long as you have a good reason?”
            If the church were founded on perfect beings (like angels) there would be no need of a Vicar of Christ on earth to tell people how they must live, what is pleasing to God, what is sinful. His humbleness avoids doing that as much as possible (the “God doesn’t care who you sleep with” mentality of the new world church, as long as you join the peace corps.
            Is it really too much to ask that the pope not be seen as the patron of sinful lifestyles by those whom he should be trying to convert?

          • HermitTalker

            Your non-sequiturs and lack of logic and insults to Jesus’ Vicar place you in Star Wars or Cloud Cuckoo Land.

          • pat

            explain, specify. What is illogical? Or is it not true. Did Francis not say the things he’s known for saying? Is he not the hero of the pride movement?

          • Heinz

            Apropos non-sequitur: Why does the rain become stronger when I’m driving my bike? First there are some few drops and then I arrive in pouring rain…

          • Heinz

            Citation: “there would be no need of a Vicar of Christ on earth to tell people how they must live”

            Certainly Jesus’ main reason to come was not to tell people how they must live (even if we want that).
            Why do you believe that the primary function of His Vicar is to tell people how to live?
            No question, that would be so convenient! In fact, somewhere in all of it, there is the promise, that we can’t go wrong, if we listen to the church. That does not mean, that our nature is to take commands.

            Jesus came to show us God, not to tell us what He wants from us. It’s only a corollary, that after seeing how God is, we want to do as He wants us to do.
            It indeed is asked too much, if the church (or we on internet forums) focus on teaching certain forms of behaviour. Instead we should be showing an image of God by conforming to Him.

            Jesus did not tell the woman what she did wrong, or that the law that condemns her were correct.
            He could have. You would have.
            He instead showed mercy that she did not deserve. Imagine: That woman really cheated on her husband! She did not even repent!

          • pat

            It’s somewhat implicit in “Feed my sheep”, in the popes role as teacher of faith and morals. But, we’re sooo past that now aren’t we. Back to the point about the core of evangelization “God is cool” and the trivia… “marriage is indissoluble” or “same sex marriage is not to be preferred, but only if you are old school Catholic”
            So, it’s all good. The church should never say anything is sinful, just walk around all day saying “God loves you” and the pope is just the head cheerleader and TV personality.

          • Wiffle

            “Why do you believe that the primary function of His Vicar is to tell people how to live?”

            Because this is primary job, – the teaching and protecting the Magisitrium, which is chock full of very explicit advise, other than protecting/administering the sacraments. God asks us, for our own benefit and to show that we love Him, to live a certain way.

            It’s a little too easy to argue that the Pope and every Priest/Bishop who refuses to point out the pitfalls of co-habitation, etc is displays a highly unmerciful indifference to others.

          • Wiffle

            “Jesus came to show us God, not to tell us what He wants from us. ”

            Um, not really. Christ was really explicit in how we should act, including obeying the 10 Commandments.

            “Jesus did not tell the woman what she did wrong, or that the law that condemns her were correct.”

            The woman was well aware of the law. We’re in a situation where, if pressed, cradle Catholic could not actually name the 10 Commandments or even a rough outline. We’ve got problems.

            “He instead showed mercy that she did not deserve. ” Assuming we’re talking about the prostitute here, He also said only “Go, sin no more.” It wasn’t exactly a talk therapy session involved afterwards. His action was mercy, his words were quite harsh.

          • Heinz

            Yes, the woman is well aware of the law. And I am very sure that everybody knows that catholic teaching is that “homosexual” and “wrong” belong into the same sentence.
            So why keep reiterating it?

            If some, even catholics, don’t know the law, I don’t think that’s directly related to the pope preaching too much mercy. It is a big problem, no question, but that started already years ago, if not centuries.

            With the public view that catholic means “stiff and judgemental”, you will not even get a catholic back into church by telling them that they are on their way to hell. It’s just impossible, however intuitive it seems to you.

            I do agree with a lot of what you say. I see the same problem, I know that people do horrible things and justify them by inventing the fitting religion. But I disagree that the solution is to be louder about the judgement and more pointing to ancient laws.

            Some protestant societies have managed quite a lot of peace and love (for a while) just “following God alone”. There is something we can learn from that, as the catholic practice is not flawless. If we would add to the blind love of the free church follower the sacraments and wisdom of the church, we would have heaven on earth and would not even need limits and restrictions anymore. The latter are a tool, they must not be the focus.

            Read St. Paul, and you will see this weird love-hate of rules and The Law. He delights in it, but says that it is useless. He follows and preaches it, but knows that it is ultimately unnecessary, even hindering. Protestants are not correct in their interpretation of some of his verses, but there is a truth in them that can feel uncomfortable to a catholic.

          • Wiffle

            “regulation of the sacraments is done merely for punishment.”

            In Germany, they withhold sacraments if you don’t register as Catholic, which means the government withholds a substantial church tax from your paycheck and sends to the German Catholic church, no questions asked.

          • Heinz

            If my children do this, then I will certainly not blame the pope or society. I will disagree with them, and they will know, because I am teaching them another view every day.
            If my children do not listen to me anymore and rather to a society that allows sex without bounds, then I consider it my personal failure, because obviously I did not manage to relay the beautiful gospel without coming over as an hate-filled idiot. My reason failed against the temptations of society: why should I then blame the temptations?

            Though my children are not yet in that age, I am in conversation with a school friend who was expulsed from seminary basically because he is gay. Now, having studied theology, he is teaching the catholic faith and lives together with his boyfriend.
            I am certain that my position, which is consistent with church teaching, is appealing for him, so that he might change his mind. However that is ultimately God’s work. As a “tool”, my main concern is to do my work well, not ensure that the whole job gets done according to my will.

            I would do the same with my children: Teach them that the alternative is better, without appealing to sin and hell and judgement. Even with my children, who are quite more reasonable than your average liberal hipster, I would use mercy, whereever I see sin. Mercy is the remedy for sin, and the only one.

            Your second paragraph… I know that this is a satire page, but what is the point of it? It’s nothing that you or me or the pope or the church teaches or agrees with. I do not deny, that some people might think so, but what is that to us? How sad would our life become, if we enrage us about every blatant stupidity?
            Now think that God sees all this wrongness and sin of all people in all countries in absolute clarity. And he still does not smite them, nor grant glorious victories to e.g. the Westboro group. Somehow He still finds mercy for this world in Him. It is as if He still believed that mercy were the solution. In fact it seem that the more people turn away from God, the more mercy He shows.

            Meditate on the parable of the prodigal son. Remember, that we are not to identify with the wayward son, but with the older brother!
            Oh, and how I can identify with him! The outrageous injustice of it all!

          • pat

            Why can’t you be merciful, (and the way we express this differs based on our roles in society, a layman is not a cleric, a neighbor is not a father) – without pretending that sin doesn’t matter, or that it is in the eye of the beholder. Admonish the sinner, remember that? Well, not possible if even in the abstract, one is called hatefilled, just for saying that cohabitation is sinful without reference to anyone in particular, but just as a matter of faith.
            You try to teach your children by example…that’s fine, but it does help your example if they don’t have an argument to come back with that the pope takes a different view, doesn’t it?
            And children are, it needs to be remembered, children. They are not mature enough yet to grasp the full implications of everything. We tell our children “don’t put your hand in the fire” we don’t just hope that they will not put their hands in the fire because they see us not putting our hands in it. When they get older, we say “Do your homework” then “don’t drive after you’ve been drinking” and so on because although the profound goodness of such admonishments may become evident to them later, the important thing now is that they just do as told. (and it’s not out of hate that we tell them this)
            Well, grown people can be spiritually immature can’t they? Believing in good and evil, heaven and hell, but not quite up to the level of self sacrificing love, able to try to avoid sin for fear of hell, more readily than for its harms on society, or why it is offends God. These people may be on the road to great holiness someday, but today, they just need to be pastored. To be told to avoid some things, like putting your hand in spiritual fire, because they will have consequences later. “Don’t get remarried”, “Don’t move in with your same sex partner” because if you do, it will dull your spiritual senses and possibly trap you in a place where you really are in a prison of sin that you can’t escape even if at some time you want to. – Then along comes the mercy offensive. With its salesmen saying “stop telling people how to live their lives, you hateful phairisee” . Not very responsible. Reminds one of the cool teacher, or the house with the cool parents, that all the kids liked, because they let them get away with stuff, they didn’t have any ‘hang-up’ (to use the jargon of the glory days of the new church). They were popular, but didn’t really help anyone grow up.

          • Heinz

            Ah… wiffle answered a lot. I answered him (her?) a lot.
            I do believe that my answer to you here can be patched together from parts that I wrote to him.

          • Wiffle

            “And he still does not smite them, nor grant glorious victories to e.g. the Westboro group. ”

            He does occasionally. Be mindful and prepared.

          • Wiffle

            “Now, having studied theology, he is teaching the catholic faith and lives together with his boyfriend.”

            Are you kidding me? No, really. The man is setup for Hell, along with his male sexual partner. The base dishonesty of his life will drag him down and leave his soul completely in shambles when he faces judgement and God. The long term cognitive dissonance will setup him for mental problems and leave him suicidal.

            Have you said nothing to this poor man? At least encourage him to choose one or other and bring honesty back to his life. He needs to at least stop teaching a faith he does not believe.

            There is no other person I can even imagine more setup for Hell than someone who knows and refuses to act according consistently or the beliefs he is supposed to have.

            “However that is ultimately God’s work”

            No, it’s not. God is asking all of us to grow up. To be co-creators. To not 100% rely on Him to make things better. To talk. To use our words and show that we love Him and not be a dependent child forever.

          • Heinz

            I agree, never fear!

            I am talking to him. I am pointing out, that his behaviour is inconsistent.
            But I am not his judge. Without parody I can indeed say: “Who am I to judge?”

            I take part in God’s work by reasoning with him. By talking about the subject until the truth comes forth. My hope is, that he will live chaste, because that is what I would try to do in his position.
            But I empathize. I put myself into his position and realize, that being in sin means being blind and deaf. I realize my own sin and how difficult it is to quit it. Even when I manage, I just find the next, more subtle sin. I know that I am unlikely to finish with all of them before I die. The least helpful peer is he, who tells me more of my sins. I can only work on them in sequence.

            You can be very sure, that however often I say that I do not judge him, he knows at least, that I support church teaching and think him acting wrong.
            That is my lever in the door. Even if I do not say another word.
            But so that my lever is sturdy and does not break, I have to have his respect and friendship. I must strengthen it with love.
            Only then becomes the “somebody does not agree with me because of his principles” the much better “a friend does not agree with me, because he is worried for me”.

            Indeed the dishonesty is a thing more clearly wrong and destructive. I can ride that one out a lot – keep making him doubt himself. That his lifestyle is wrong is not clear to him, so I must slowly work that into him. I cannot start with the precept, that he is wrong – why would he listen?

          • Wiffle

            “Teach them that the alternative is better, without appealing to sin and hell and judgement. ”

            It turns out I use the same method. The Heaven/Hell judgement is all real, but society doesn’t back anyone up anyone on it anymore, so on such sensitive ground, I’m forced to use alternatives, which seem to go better. It’s worked to date with my children, but they’re not out there yet.

            And when I have tried the pointing how miserable it is to co-habitate, be gay, ” in this life online, I have received the same endless objections about “mercy”. I’m too “negative”..because I’m pointing out that gay men have a life expectancy of 55 and overuse the mental health system.

            Bottom line: “Mercy”, as defined today, is about never objecting to any sort of behavior, even when deliberately avoiding sin/Hell/judgement and instead pointing out how such behavior will long term leave their lives in shambles. God has it covered somehow, even though he keeps sending prophets and saints and even a Savior to warn people in the flesh about their bad behaviors.

          • Heinz

            Oh yes, also the word “Mercy” can be misinterpreted easily.

            I still see that Papa teaches the real Mercy and so it is pointless to say that in one’s opinion he should say this-and-that and then less people will misunderstand him. Vatican II is greatly misunderstood, but who would care to reformulate? It was also very very necessary.

            Also, I do not agree that co-habitation and gayness is automatically miserable.
            My uncle divorced his wife and married a nicer one. It is quite plain that the new wife is nicer, so, to say that he is now more miserable than before is just wrong. I believe he would be miserable however if he could clearly see all consequences.
            After years of living “in the closet” and without a chance to talk about one’s feelings, any human intimacy will be an improvement.
            As long as you are riddled with fear and panic from committing your life, co-habitating will successfully distract you from misery.

            I cannot imagine going to people that have on their own finally found a small (but wrong) way to live better with their problems, experience an improvement, and telling them first of all that the way leads to misery and hell.
            You *must* first congratulate and be happy that their situation improved. The first step must be the true acknowledgement of their achievement, however tiny compared to God’s plan.

            Once we talk about sin, we have to be seven times more careful, because any inaccuracy, omission of alternative information and peripheral wrong point will be used to invalidate the whole argument.

            There are two ways to succeed:
            1 be 100% perfectly intelligent, have *all* data and all wisdom or
            2 be patient and merciful.
            I know only of one who is the first, and even He chooses the second way.

          • Heinz

            Preching hell is a very good way to pummel oneself/one’s will and body into submission. I put the dangers of hell in front of me to control my deviant feelings.

            However it is a bad tool to use on others. I can fast, I can even chastize myself, but I am not allowed to force others to fast or chastize them with my hands.

            Fear of hell must be a personal experience! So teach that there is a hell without threatening anybody with it.

          • pat

            We, or at least I, are not talking about becoming a bunch of ogres who run around pummeling people who don’t measure up to their standards. (although, the world does seem to have a tolerant, if not approving view of such pummeling when it is done on behalf of the current cause celebre. Refusing to talk to you uncle who voted for Trump, for example, can make one a hero, refusing to patronize a business that supports PP – not so much)

            But, we, or I at least, was talking about the official church.

            When i said ” When your daughter comes home…” I am not saying how YOU should handle that…. I am simply saying that having her believe, either rightly or wrongly, that it’s ok, because of the way the current mercy offensive is being prosecuted, doesn’t help her or you.
            (and she is likely to believe that, if 2 positions present themselves, that one is right which allows her to do what she wants to do)

            Now we are made for eternal happiness, not earthly happiness. Congratulating someone for taking up a life of sin, because it makes him happy, hardly seems like a good idea, I am not of the mind that a child, a neighbor, a friend, a stranger, should be shunned by me, or treated badly because they are living in sin. I am saying that it is not merciful, or helpful or good for the truth about such things to be obscured by the official representative of the church in the name of mercy.

            (Imagine if the government, knowing that smoking causes cancer, decided not to tell anyone to avoid hurt feelings…they would look pretty bad, and they would be negligent)

          • Heinz

            I know that you are not pummeling people into submission. I’m sorry if I insinuated that. I mean what you address in the brackets of your first paragraph: The word is doing that, so we must be doing the opposite. But the opposite of being one-sided merciful is not being other-sided mercyful. Instead it is being mercyful to all.

            To me it looks like we are very much agreed upon God’s mercy and the sinfulness of sin. I agree with you, that many people wrongly understand mercy to mean that we don’t have to care at all, because God will fix everything anyways.
            For example the gay theology teacher I mentioned told me horrible things: “I was taught by Jesuits and I don’t believe that a god of love will judge me on my love.” and “If I go to hell for loving, then so be it.”
            You can certainly imagine, that I cannot jump in now and say: “Nono, you are all wrong. God WILL judge you for that. Stop doing that NOW!”
            That is all true, but not helpful, even for a mostly-practicing catholic.

            I do believe that our common trust in the pope (the gay trusts him, because the pope does not preach against gays) is my angle to show him how this mercy thing really works and what the pope means, if one takes off the pink-coloured glasses.
            And that is my point of this whole discussion, especially with you pat: Rather rejoice in the extreme mercy that Papa preaches and use it to get to those people that will not listen to anybody, who talks about their sin. Do not weaken the position of the whole church by insinuating that Papa is talking nonsense and that “the real” church talks openly about sins.
            We cannot! It simply is not an option to talk so openly about sin and judgement, because the devil has used many many people (many protestants, but not only!) to teach the world that sin-preachers are hateful people. So we must use a different way of teaching people, and Papa is showing us that way.

            You seem to be wanting that the pope preaches the hard teachings, so that you don’t have to…
            Think about it as if Francis illuminates the entrance of a dark tunnel in order to encourage people to find the courage to go through it. You must be the guide, he cannot. But don’t say only because the entrance is so bright that there is no dark tunnel behind it.

          • HermitTalker

            I dropped out of this thread earlier. I reflect daily on Father Richard Rohr OFM’s Center of Applied Contemplation’s reflections. He has a deeply thoughtful approach to ending dualistic thinking, begins with God being in absolute love with us humans. No fake inherited body is bad, soul is good tension that is why Genesis was written, all is GOOD. Helps me totally accept Pope Francis’ approach to a healthy spirituality, not the superficial criticism of his moronic enemies who think he is a communist, Marxist or heretic. Some sentiments expressed on here and other social media sites by people arrogantly bashing him with no intellectual or academic qualifications. He regularly describes objective moral evil but does not come across as a Pharisaic cherry-picking Bible verse picker. Heinz , you do well on here in promoting sane moral and healthy principles. Thank you. I read daily but stopped commenting.

          • Heinz

            Thanks for the nice words. 🙂

          • Heinz

            One addition: Sometimes I feel that God *is* slowly losing His patience:
            During the OT-times, people understood that you must be good lest you will be punished. That is the only way a fallen person understands this.
            Then came the new world order, and the focus shifted: Now we want to be good, because God is good.
            2000 years later, maybe the time runs out for people that still need the idea of punishment to be good.
            God wants more and more of us to be good, loving and God-like because we love Him and grows less and less patient with those who are good because they fear Him.

            Personally I am not ready for this. I need a healthy fear of the Lord. But I have seen people that do not, and those are creepily happy!
            And in my onward journey I do not meditate on the fear, but on the love, though both are present.

          • Wiffle

            “There is no place for love and mercy in any secular state definition. Pure rationality leads to such a world. ”

            The secular world is a result of egotism and emotionalism run amok. Haven’t you noticed how many charismatic movements the late 20th century until now have spawned? How emotional everyone is about their pet projects and politics? It’s not authentic or spiritual unless people are moved to the point where they just “feel” it. Nothing less than the ground shaking every time they think or speak will do.

            “I count myself a catholic not, because I agree with every teaching naturally, but because I assent to church teaching, even if I do not understand it and even feel deep in my prideful and sinful heart, that we should stop cuddling those sinners.”

            Everything the Catholic Church teaches has natural law evidence. Everything. You don’t have to take anyone’s word for it, just start looking around. God=love and therefore any rule or anything He asks us to do is for our benefit in this life and the next, just exactly like a loving Father.

            For instance, the restrictions on homosexual behavior are because it’s bad for the person and society. Head on over to the Centers for Disease Control website and check out the depressing picture of the “average” gay man or woman. (Life expectancy of an active gay man: 55.) Google “bug chasing” – a concept that is about a burnout hedonism. Long term, to act on homosexual impulses leads to misery and suicidal tendencies.

            And that’s just one example. I think you’ll find, ironically, that most of this faux mercy floating around the West is mostly just a form self indulgence and indifference. It’s a way to respectably not care about anyone properly.

          • HermitTalker

            So true. Head and Heart are employed for genuine virtue. Faith and Reason as RCC insists

          • HermitTalker

            So true. God’s Wisdom that became Flesh in Christ beats all superficial atheist, secularist drivel every time

          • Wiffle

            “Unjustified mercy must be the first step, especially in a world that is mercilessly just!”

            Our world is not mercilessly just – the vast majority of people never feel the consequences of their actions thanks to the comfort technology and money has brought. That’s the problem. When we aren’t shielded from the consequences of our actions, we’re panicking, unable to cope.

          • pat

            how exactly do you act as a counterpoint to the evils of society by saying “who am I to judge?” when it comes to all those evils (except borders and air conditioning, he’s firm on those)?
            for instance, marriage is disappearing from the world at the same time the pope says- “eh, cohabitation is more holy”

          • HermitTalker

            His who am I to judge was spoken about a repentant person. Milked to death by moronic commentators. Name one exact source where he condones co-habitation? His Laudato Si encyclical mentions A/C in a specific context. Read it, not the social media part-quotes His borders comments do not ignore the need for security but challenge selfish, short-sighted approaches to economy and self-preservation. I must give up trying to teach you pat. As a pillow- crochet message says “Never teach a pig to sing it wastes one’s time and annoys the pig.”

          • pat

            And what did he say? Did he say – “as long as he tries to be chaste?” As long as he keeps the commandments? No. so As long as he is searching for god. Well, does that not apply to Bill and Steve who got married in the Methodist church last week? or Joe and Paul, who consider themselves spiritual, but don’t go to church… or… well you know….

            The cohabitation endorsement comes from the same remarks where he said that the vast majority of Catholic marriages were invalid.

            He did not say who am i to judge about borders. he said it was not Christian. so… it is possible to make a moral judgement about some things…

          • HermitTalker

            OINK yesOINK. Game over for me with you who seem incapable of reading and discussing rationally pat. It might be all my fault but I quit. Be at Peace

          • LionelAndrades

            If you assume the baptism of desire(BOD) refers to visible and known people saved outside the Church then BOD contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). For me BOD refers to invisible people in 2018 and if they happened they would only be known to God. So invisible cases of BOD(LG 14) and invincible ignorance(LG 16) cannot be objective exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.A person must exist to be an exception.
            So LG 16 and LG 14 do not contradict AG 7( all need faith and baptism for salvation).
            Vatican Council II, with hypothetical and speculative cases of GS 22, NA 2, LG 8, UR 3 etc are not exceptions or relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the missionaries and magisterium of the 16th century.
            So Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) is in harmony, for me, with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.

  • Well, at least now you don’t have to say, “it’s my friend’s heresy, honest!”

  • LionelAndrades

    JANUARY 13, 2018
    One World Religion Grand Ecumenical Procession to be held on Jan 22 by the Vatican
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/01/one-world-religion-grand-ecumenical.html

    • HermitTalker

      Not real. For example baptism by desire is not known or verifiable by definition. No bishop or anyone can deny them. Its akin to pretending to read minds. Ever hear of fake news, or spam media reports. Use common sense.

      • LionelAndrades

        We don’t deny baptism of desire(BOD). We accept it in its historicity.It is compatible with extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).It does not have to be either -or. We can affirm BOD and also EENS.

      • LionelAndrades

        I affirm BOD and EENS
        Generally in the Catholic Church today it is assumed that the baptism of desire (BOD) is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).’Is it not an exception to the dogma EENS for you,’ I am asked, and I respond saying that, ‘We can affirm the baptism of desire and EENS.It does not have to be either-or.’
        Since for the popes and the cardinals BOD refers to a known person saved outside the Church, it becomes a visible and known exception to the dogma EENS. It is then definitely either the baptism of desire or EENS.
        For me BOD refers to an unknown person in 2018, it is an invisible case. It is a reference only to something which is hypothetical, a possibility known only to God if it happened.So it is not an exception to EENS for me.It does not have to be either BOD or EENS . I affirm hypothetical BOD and also the necessity for all needing to be members of the Catholic Church with no known exceptions. I affirm BOD and EENS.Eat your cake and have too, in this case.
        So I accept BOD in its historicity, I do not have a problem with it.Since only someone who exists in our reality can be an exception to EENS, if someone does not exist, if there are no cases of BOD, then BOD cannot be an exception or relevant to the traditional, centuries old interpretation of EENS.

  • LionelAndrades

    JANUARY 11, 2018
    Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos must ask Pope Benedict to recant and end the doctrinal crisis in the Church
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/01/cardinal-castrillon-hoyos-must-pope.html

    • HermitTalker

      Persistent denier of reality

      • LionelAndrades

        I affirm the baptism of desire (BOD) and the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).This is my reality.
        For you and the bishops BOD is an exception to EENS.It is either BOD or the strict interpretation of EENS.Either-or.
        So since BOD is an exception to EENS for you, you infer that there are known cases for them to be exceptions..Known people saved outside the Church without the baptism of water and Catholic faith.Known people?Who are they? What are their names and surnames?
        There are none, obviously. So this is the reality you affirm and teach. Even now after being informed, it is deception.
        It is irrational. The liberal theologians faked it.You accepted it and this is the lie you are defending as a Catholic.
        How can someone in Heaven be an exception to EENS on earth? Ghosts?You violate the Principle of Non Contradiction.

        • HermitTalker

          You do not know the relevant theology which I learned before Vatican Two and not from any looney Theology but from THE OFFICIAL CHURCH TEACHINGS.

          • LionelAndrades

            I have studied theology.I was taught the ‘official theology’ at a liberal Catholic Institute of Theology, I have credit points.Then in Rome I studied Philosophy at the Legion of Christ University,UPRA.
            So what?
            You have not answered the basic non theological question:how can invisible cases of BOD, people who do not exist in California, be a visible exception to the dogma EENS according to, for example the missionaries in the 16th century?
            Your theology, which was also fed to me some 17 years back, does not make sense ?

          • HermitTalker

            I learned mine before Vat Two. Certainly not from the Legion of Christ. BOD a you call it is established RCC teaching. Feeney SJ of Boston was a heretic, despite R. Cardinal Cushing’s efforts to reconcile him. I was around in those years aware of that topic. .

          • LionelAndrades

            Yes BOD is established RCC teaching for me too but then we still come back to the question you have not answered: in real life does BOD refer to invisible or visible people on earth?
            For Fr.FeeneySJ BOD was invisible. For Cardinal Cushing they were visible.
            The Holy Office 1949 and the Jewish Left media supported Cushing.
            Visible -for -us BOD is irrational. It is not real. One does not have to be a Catholic to realize this .
            But the liberal theologians promoted this irrationality in Vatican Council II and then Cardinal Ratzinger continued with the false premise in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
            The mistake is not permanent.
            I accept Vatican Council II and the Catechism(1994) but interpret all hypothetical cases as just being hypothetical.So my interpretation of these Church documents ,which I affirm as a Catholic, will be different from yours.
            Similarly our understanding of the Nicene Creed and the Profession of Faith will be different, even though we are both Catholics.

          • LionelAndrades

            How can Feeney be a heretic when there are no known cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance.?
            The heretic would reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and falsely suggest invisible cases of BOD are visible exceptions to EENS.
            So who is the heretic?
            Rings a bell?

          • LionelAndrades

            According to Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson there are no known cases of BOD and BOD is not an exception to Feeneyite EENS. It is there on his blog.
            Father Stefano Visintin osb, the present Rector of the Pontifical University of St. Anselm, has the same message.
            For you BOD is an exception.
            So are the two of them heretics for you?

          • LionelAndrades

            The Great Denier.
            He will not answer if BOD refers to invisible or visible people in 2018.

          • HermitTalker

            You dumb cluck. Baptism of DESIRE. Is by definition HEAD, HEART. Not necessarily expressed. Read MT 25:36-41. Your illiteracy is astounding END OF TOPIC FOR ME

          • LionelAndrades

            So it refers to known and visible cases for you in 2018?

          • LionelAndrades

            It is important to affirm EENS and BOD and not choose one or the other.
            I accept the baptism of desire(BOD) and extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).I am not like the traditionalists, liberals and sedevacantists for whom it is either BOD or EENS(Feeneyite).
            Since BOD refers to invisible cases for me it is BOD with EENS. I can have it both ways.The liberals, traditionalists and sedevacantists do not comprehend this.
            They, like Pope Francis and Pope Benedict, have made a doctrinal error. Since for all of them it is BOD or EENS and BOD is an exception to EENS.Of course,Vatican Council II has to emerge as a rupture with Tradition for all of them, it would become a rupture with EENS(Feeneyite).This is because they consider Fr. Leonard Feeney in heresy and not Cardinal Cushing and the Holy Office (CDF) in 1949.They consider the baptism of desire a visible case. It is a visible and known example of salvation outside the Church. So Fr. Leonard Feeney is wrong for them and Cardinal Cushing was correct.This was always the position of the Jewish Left media in Boston.

            The writings of Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger are now obsolete.Since for both of them, liberal and traditionalist, it was BOD or EENS.
            The traditionalists and liberals use the new theology based on invisible BOD,BOB and I.I being visible exceptions to EENS. So they have had to choose between BOD and Feeneyism.

            Image result for Photo of Cushingite heresy
            The liberals and traditionalists reject Feeneyism, which says invisible BOD,BOB and I.I are not visible exceptions to EENS.This was rational but it was not magisterial for Pope Pius XII.Feeneyism, the traditional interpretation of the dogma (without hypothetical cases being concrete and objections to EENS) was also not supported by the liberals Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar,Kung and others.

            These liberal theologians faked it.They inferred with no theological basis, that BOD etc referred to known people saved outside the Church.The popes and saints did not state that there were known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I but the liberal theologians made the inference to get rid of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
            It is common sense that BOD, BOB and I.I have to refer to invisible people. They can only be a reference to hypothetical cases.This is something obvious.
            But the liberals inferred that there were known people saved outside the Church and this was accepted by Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops.This is the understanding today for the sedevacantists Bishop Mark Pivarunas, Superior General of the large CMRI sedevacantist community,Bishop Donald Donald Sanborn, Rector of sedevantist, Most Holy Trinity Florida, Fr.Antony Cekada, who is on the faculty of the Florida seminary and Peter and Michael Dimond who maintain the Most Holy Family Monastery of Peter and Michael Dimond.
            For them it is either BOD or EENS.
            For me it is not either BOD or EENS.

            For the two popes it is either BOD or EENS. So Vatican Council II becomes a rupture with Tradition.This is how Massimo Faggioli and Michael Sean Winters interpret Vatican Council II.So they have to reject Tradition and the old ecclesiology.They are supported by Pope Benedict in this hermeneutic of rupture with the past.He was one of the fathers of this hermeneutic of rupture.
            For me Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Tradition. Since LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, GS 22 refer to only speculative and hypothetical cases.

            This was not known to the Council Fathers and so they made a mistake at Vatican Council II. They should not have mentioned BOD, BOB and I.I directly or indirectly, in the Council II texts.These are now superflous references with respect to EENS.Since BOD, BOB and I.I are references to only hypothetical and non existing people, they cannot be exceptions, for example, to Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation.Yet in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 along with the passage which says all need faith and baptism, there is an accompanying passage which mentions BOD and I.I(LG 14 and LG 16).So in principle, this was a mistake in Vatican Council II.

            Similarly when LG 14 suggests only those who know about Jesus and the Church and who did not enter do not enter are on the way to Hell, it was a mistake.

            This is because the Council Fathers wrongly assumed that there were known cases of people, saved outside the Church, in invincible ignorance. So for them every one did not need to enter the Church for salvation but only those who were not in invincible ignorance, those who knew about Jesus and the Church.

            In spite of this error, we can be aware that those who know or do not know, and are saved or not saved, are known only to God. They cannot be known to us in personal cases.So they never were exceptions to Feeneyite EENS and the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.So LG 14 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation).

            It is important to affirm EENS and BOD and not choose one or the other.BOD and the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. BOD and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.-Lionel Andrades

          • LionelAndrades

            O.k, so then does BOD refer to visible and known people in 2018 or invisible and unknown people ?
            And if they are invisible and unknown can they be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

          • LionelAndrades

            This is intellectual dishonesty H.T.

    • HermitTalker

      Denier in Chief

      • LionelAndrades

        So why do you delete the comments,What are you afraid of?

        To understand what I am saying you have to identify the false premise and conclusion.
        Then you have to re-interpret Vatican Council II without this irrational premise and non traditional conclusion.
        Presently about everyone supports the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston, which used a false premise to create a non traditional result.
        When the Letter from Rome said that the baptism of desire (BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) were exceptions to EENS and so not everyone needed to enter the Church for salvation,it made a wrong inference.
        It inferred that there were known cases of the BOD and I.I in 1949.This is implied.SInce only if there are known cases there could be exceptions.
        The Letter inferred that there were known and visible non Catholics saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
        So it presumed:
        1.There were physically visible cases of the BOD and being saved in I.I.
        2.There were hypothetical cases which were explicit, objectively visible.
        3.There were physically visible cases of BOD and I.I without the baptism of water.
        So the conclusion was:
        There were ‘known exceptions’, ‘practical exceptions’ to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS (Feeneyite).
        This is the false premise( invisible cases are physically visible) and conclusion( these ‘visible’ cases are exceptions to Feeneyite EENS) which is common in the Catholic Church as the Arian heresy was once common in the past.
        This is a magisterial heresy since 1949 and it has not been corrected by popes and cardinals since the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.
        The error of there being known- to-us cases of BOD and I.I was generally accepted and so it was incorporated into Vatican Council II.Even more hypothetical cases were added.It was assumed that there were different possibilities of being saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church e.g ‘seeds of the Word'(AG 11).There is also the ‘visible for us’ LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc.
        So like with EENS, we have to identify the irrational premise and conclusion also with Vatican Council II.
        We re-interpret Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases just being hypothetical. So they are no more exceptions to EENS.
        The result is that Vatican Council II cleared of the irrational premise and conclusion,is what I call Vatican Council II, Feeneyite.
        Presently everyone else is affirming Vatican Council II, Cushingite.It includes the premise and non traditional conclusion.Hypothetical cases are assumed to be explicitly visible in 2016.Then it is concluded that Vatican Council II(Cushingite) is a rupture with EENS( Feeneyite).
        It is also concluded by the liberals that Vatican Council II (Cushingite) is in harmony with a new EENS ( Cushingite).This EENS(C) is based upon invisible cases being visible one earth, hypothetical cases being personally known, practical exceptions to Tradition.
        With such sophisticated logic the enemies of the Church did away with the dogma EENS.They created a Vatican Council II based on an irrationality and error.A false logic.For Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr.Karl Rahner S.J it was the new theology.
        It’s now redundant.The redundancy has begun.We have found the missing link.Feeneyism is the missing link which will bring it down.The Catholic Church will return back to its traditional and rational salvation theology and philosophy

      • LionelAndrades

        Feeneyite Vatican Council II says Lutherans are on the way to Hell.
        Pope Francis greets leaders of the Lutheran World Federation during a visit to the Vatican in October 2013 – AFP
        Feeneyite Vatican Council II says Lutherans are on the way to Hell.Vatican Council II interpreted with the reasoning of Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston or the 16th century missionaries takes us back to the old ecumenism.It is a different Vatican Council II then the one Pope Francis understands.
        Vatican Council II interpreted with Feeneyism would not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and so the Council II would be saying all Lutherans are on the way to Hell.There are no known exceptions in the present times and the Council cannot be mentioning any exception.
        In other words all Lutherans are on the way to Hell without Catholic Faith.However over the last 50 years Vatican Council II is being interpreted with Cushingism.
        Luther did not have Catholic Faith when he died. He also died in mortal sin for so many other reasons. He was oriented to the fires of Hell according to Catholic teaching.Catholics who marry Lutherans are living in adultery even if the Cushingite priest says otherwise.

        LUTHERANS CANNOT RECEIVE THE EUCHARIST
        It is being reported these days, correctly, that Lutherans cannot receive the Eucharist, as the one-world-religion people would want them to do so. However it is not being said that outside the Church there is no known salvation.We do not and cannot know of a Lutheran who is in Heaven without ‘faith and baptism’ in the Catholic Church.There is no known exception on Oct 30, 2016 to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Those who are saved in imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3), are unknown people in 2016.Imaginary cases. If there was such case in the past, it could not be a known exception to EENS in 2016.Then for us human beings some one in the past cannot be postulated as an exception to the dogma EENS in the present (October 2016).

        COUNCIL MINED WITH HYPOTHETICAL CASES
        Vatican Council II is full of these hypothetical cases.They have been placed there, for liberals to interpret them as being objectively known in the present times.Even the conservatives have fallen before this error in reasoning.
        Vatican Council II with Feeneyism as an interpretative theology is saying all Lutherans need to be incorporated into the Catholic Church to avoid the fires of Hell and this is a message which Pope Francis and the leftist Vatican Curia will not convey to the Lutherans.

        CATHOLIC BLOGGERS WITHOUT FEENEYISM
        Even Catholic bloggers are not covering this point. Since they too do not interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.Instead for them to it is interpreting Vatican Council II with the innovative and irrational Cushingite new theology.Then they reject the Council and wrongly blame the text of Vatican Council II for their fault.
        Without Cushingism, that is assuming there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS, even though there are physically none visible in 2016, Vatican Council II is traditional with the old ecclesiology.The old ecclesiology said Jews, Protestants and Orthodox Christians needed to convert into the Church to avoid the fires of Hell.
        So If we go back to the interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney then pastorally Vatican Council II will have the hermeneutic of continuity on ecumenism.
        Leonard Feeney is the key to solving all this confusion brought into the Church.

        POLISH CATHOLIC ON GLORIA TV
        I repeat, if Catholics today would accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted by Fr. Leonard Feeney then Vatican Council II would pastorally be in harmony with Tradition.This was observed by a Polish Catholic, on Gloria TV.
        Instead the two popes will not interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.So the Council is a break with Tradition and the traditional ecumenism of return.

        HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY WITH ECUMENISM OF RETURN
        Vatican Council II has a continuity with the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the rest of Tradition.This means Luther was outside the Catholic Church and is lost according to teachings of the Catholic Church in Vatican Council II.

        MISSING LINK FOUND IN CATHOLIC CHURCH
        Feeneyism is the missing link in the Catholic bloggers interpretation of the Pope’s visit to Lund tomorrow for the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Revolt, where he does not tell Lutherans that they are on the way to Hell and need to enter the Catholic Church.

        JESUIT NEW THEOLOGY ELIMINATED
        With Feeneyism the new theology promoted by the Jesuits has been eliminated.The new theology was pegged on there being known salvation outside the Church.
        With Feeneyism we have a rational way to interpret Vatican Council II and tell Lutherans and other Christians that it is not enough to just believe in Jesus but one has to follow the teachings of Jesus as taught in only the Catholic Church.

        NO CITATIONS FOR LIBERALS
        With Feeneyism as an alternative interpretation of the Council the liberals, in and out of the Catholic Church, have no citations in Vatican Council II to support their familiar non traditional interpretation on ecumenism.

      • LionelAndrades

        Feeneyism is the missing link

        If we go back to the interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney then pastorally Vatican Council II will have the hermeneutic of continuity.
        If all of them would accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted by Fr. Leonard Feeney then Vatican Council II would pastorally be in harmony with Tradition.Yes we’ve finally found the missing link.What causes the hermeneutic of rupture ? When has Vatican Council II a hermeneutic of continuity?
        The whole Church rejects Feeneyism and so Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition.
        Feeneyism for me is not accepting any exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) since there are no physically known exceptions in the present times.There cannot be any objective exception for us human beings, past or present.
        Hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance cannot be exceptions to EENS in Feeneyism.
        So a Feeneyite for me would read the text of Vatican Council II and not confuse LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 as being objectively visible in 2016. So they would not be relevant, or an exception, to the dogma EENS as interpreted by Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston or the 16th century missionaries.
        Vatican Council II has a continuity with the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the rest of Tradition.
        Feeneyism would accept the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which supports Fr. Leonard Feeney and reject the second part which contradicts the first part.
        Feeneyism is the missing link.
        Feeneyite your interpretation of Vatican Council II and get back to the old ecclesiology.The Council is pro-Tradition. The teachings of the Catholic Church on salavtion are the same before and after Vatican Council II.
        There can only be an ecumenism of return in Vatican Council II. Since UR 3 etc are hypothetical and so do not contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.
        All non Catholics with no exception need to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation, to avoid Hell,since there are no known exceptions outside the Church. There cannot be an Anonymous Christian since there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS ; there are no known cases of someone being saved outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church to contradict the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology.
        So if we attend the Novus Ordo Mass or the Traditional Latin Mass the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church is still the same.The new theology has been eliminated since it was based on there being known salvation outside the Church.Ratzinger-Rahner move over.
        With Feeneyism we have a rational way to interpret Vatican Council II.No more gymnastics. No more assuming there are visible people on earth who have died with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water and they are relevant to the dogma on salvation.There are none.
        This puts the liberals on the defensive. Once Catholics know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism there is now an alternative for them.One which they may not like.Also now the liberals have no citations from Vatican Council II to support their ‘progressivist’ interpretation.We now know that LG 16 is always, always hypothetical.It is always only a possibility and never a known reality.So the liberals cannot any more cite LG 16 as an exception to Feeneyite EENS. Wikipedia would have to correct the on line error.
        This means the SSPX and the traditionalists are in a smiling position.Canonically Vatican Council II should no more be a hurdle.The whole game plan has changed. The doctrinal scenario has changed.Vatican Council II is traditional and right up their tree.It is Ecclesia Dei and the CDF who need to affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with Tradition,and they’ll have to do it with Feeneyism.
        Times have changed.

  • Rose Lincoln

    Admin, are you on holidays? Can we have a fresh story? Got withdrawal symptoms. Get moving! Thanks darl.