RealCatholicTV.com and Michael Voris in the news again

In December 2011 RealCatholicTV.com was asked by the Archdiocese of Detroit to drop the use of "Catholic" from their name. Here's the first press release from the Archdiocese of Detroit Statement regarding Real Catholic TV and its name. The Archdiocese of Detroit also issued this replay to their original statement in January 2012 Need for Statement on Real Catholic TV.

Here's the latest on the fallout from the two press releases above for RealCatholicTV.com and Michael Voris from LifeSiteNews.com titled Archdiocesan canon lawyers differ on asking RealCatholicTV.com to drop 'Catholic' name. Many readers have commented and share their opinions on the subject as well.

Here's the latest video response from Michael Voris...

YouTube Preview Image
  • Lionel Andrades

    The Archdiocese of Detroit also opposed Real Catholic TV.com’s understanding of other religions and Christian communities. Vorris affirms the dogma outside the church there is no salvation.
    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.
    Robert Sungenis’ bishop of Bishop Kevin Rhoades who is now the bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend, USA where the owner of Real Catholic TV.com lives. He is Marc Brammar who has written to the bishop and received no reply.
    Wikipedia and other hit media have reported that Sungenis had been criticized by the his bishop, Kevin Rhoades and was asked to remove the name Catholic.
    Michael Vorris has indicated that the pressure on the Archdiocese of Detroit has come also from outside the diocese. He seemed to be indicating the same non Catholic opponents of Sungenis.
    Would the Archdiocese also not accept the conclusion of the following report on the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

    Tuesday, January 10, 2012
    ERRORS 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

    ERRORS 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

    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/errors-in-catechism-of-catholic-church.html#links

  • Ed Hahnenberg

    If one reads the following link http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=4129, one can get a pretty accurate picture of Michael Voris' operation. Obviously there are Catholic teachings explained by Voris, but his anti-ecclesiastical, in-your-face, doctrinaire shows are to be viewed as having no ecclesiastical approval by a showman with limited academic credentials. Lots of ego in this 50 year old "expert."

  • Ed Hahnenberg

    To all who have been following this and other threads....

    Lionel Andrades...This is the fellow I've been carrying on a conversation with lately. This guy believes that Pope Benedict XVI is a HERETIC and is EXCOMMUNICATED! Here's Andrades in his own words:

    "Pope Benedict XVI and some of his Curia have stated in the public media that Jews do not have to convert in the present times. This is a rejection of Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7) which indicates Catholic Faith and the baptism of water is the ordinary means of salvation (to avoid Hell).

    "Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance, good conscience) is not the ordinary way of salvation and neither do we know of any case of a non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.

    "Pope Benedict also rejects an ex cathedra dogma, defined three times by three Church Councils, on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

    "As Cardinal Ratzinger, along with Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, he excommunicated Fr. Tissa Balasuriya OMI for denying an ex cathedra dogma.

    "Pope Benedict rejects Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG14) and Cantate Domino, Council of Florence and is automatically excommunicated according to the teaching of the Church for centuries, including the pontificate of Pope John Paul II.

    "The pope is not to offer Mass until he receives absolution in the Confessional and makes public amends, removes the scandal.

    "Pope Benedict is my pope. When I commit a sin I go for Confession. I assume the Holy Father does the same."
    -Lionel Andrades

    You can find this garbage at http://douglawrence.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/the-bellarmine-report-new-name-new-look-more-convenient-same-solid-conservative-catholic-content/.

    Enough said.

    • Grant

      Thanks for posting that information. Somehow I'm not all that shocked by that information. It's no wonder then that he found his way to someone like Sungenis. Birds of a feather. There's something terribly wrong there.

      • Lionel Andrades

        Sunday, January 15, 2012
        Will Bishops Allen Vigneron and Kevin Rhoades give permission for a website against Michael Vorris?

        Robert Sungenis called his (former) bishop Kevin Rhoades a heretic since he could not say in public that Judaism is not a path to salvation and that Jews need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation (to avoid Hell). A website was created Robert Sungenis and the Jews. While Bishop Kevin Rhoades, the former bishop of Harrisburg, Penn. asked Robert Sungenis to remove the word ‘Catholic ‘from his website Catholics Apologetics International. This was widely reported by the Jewish Left media including the anti-Sungenis website.

        Michael Vorris produced a good video titled The Jews. Robert Sungenis carried it on his website and wrote, ‘At last someone has got it right!’

        The video said the Catholic Church is the continuation of the Jewish religion. Catholics have the Jewish Messiah.They have the Sacrifice in the Mass. So this is the Eternal Covenant of the new Chosen People of God.

        Archbishop Allen Vigneron, the Archbishop of Detroit where Real Catholic TV is situated asked Michael Vorris to remove the name Catholic from Real CatholicTV.com. The owner of Real Catholic TV.com Marc Brammer lives in the Indiana Fort Wayne- South Bend diocese where Bishop Kevin Rhoades is the bishop.

        Now will Bishop Kevin Rhoades approve a hit-website against Michael Vorris and Real Catholic TV.com?

        When Fr. Brian Harrison O.S pointed out that the website Robert Sungenis and the Jews was not Catholic in its attitude to the issue and that it also lacked charity , those who maintained the website turned on him. They began a political attack. They politicized a doctrinal issue with the support of Bishop Kevin Rhoades and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops who did not say that the website was ‘not Catholic’.

        Similarly in the past Archbishop Richard Cushing used his office to prevent Fr. Leonard Feeney from teaching the traditional interpretation of the dogma outside the church there is no salvation. Fr.Leonard Feeney was being opposed by the Jews in Boston. Instead of supporting Fr. Feeney the Archbishop placed restrictions on the priest’s ability to offer Mass and hear Confession. Catholics were discouraged from visiting the St. Benedict Center. The Jesuits expelled a few Catholic professors from Boston College who were loyal to the teachings of the Catholic Church. They were criticised in communication with Rome.

        The Richard Cushing-Leonard Feeney, Kevin Rhoades-Robert Sungenis case is the visible manifestation of how the faith is compromised when there is political pressure from outside the Church. The bishops are not answering basic questions about the faith for fear of retaliation. Now they are making a virtue out of a necessity and putting restrictions on those lay Catholics who are still speaking the truth.

        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)

        The new ‘thought monitors’ are not going to answer these questions and they will persecute and oppose any Catholic, who does not deny the Faith.

        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.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.

        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.

        In spite of the propaganda Robert Sungenis has not given 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. 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.

        Michael Vorris understands and has produced a video A Free Country http://youtu.be/9-0aCDYDbnA . Robert Sungenis has placed it on the homepage of his website, The Bellarmine Report (Catholic Apologetics International).
        -Lionel Andrades

        • Grant

          Lionel,

          There are some serious holes in your story line. If you can't fill them with solid proof, then all you've really proven is that you have an overly active imagination, suspicious tendencies and willingness to make rash accusations.

          Where's the proof that Bishop Rhoades gave permission for the creation of a website against Sungenis?

          Where's the proof that Bishop Rhoades is "not answering questions about the faith for fear of retaliation" from people outside the Church?

          Where's the proof that Bishop Rhoades and Archbishop Vigneron have even talked about Michael Voris at this point?

          Bishop Rhoades' Judicial Vicar was asked by a reporter if the diocese had any complaints about Voris and his program and he answered "No, as far as I know there's nothing."? How does that fit with your story that Bishop Rhoades is trying to shut Voris down?

          Where's your proof that Archbishop Vigneron asked Voris to remove the name "Catholic" from his program **specifically because Voris said that Judaism isn't a path to salvation and that Jews need to convert to the Catholic Church like everyone else**?

          You mentioned a defense of Sungenis made by a priest who's a close friend of his (named Fr. Harrison). But you ignored a statement by Sungenis' bishop that Sungenis' writings about Jews are "hostile, uncharitable and un-Christian." And you ignored a statement by Sungenis' bishop that Sungenis' accusations against him were "slanderous and erroneous."

          You also ignored the fact that Sungenis and the Jews blog people answered Fr. Harrison. Fr. Harrison has been silent ever since. That was over three years ago. A lot of others have had some harsh criticisms for Sungenis since then, too, but still nothing from Fr. Harrison. Here are the articles:

          http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/09/fr-harrison-and-rsatj.html

          http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/09/fr-harrison-and-diocese-of-harrisburg.html

          And did you notice Fr. Harrison's article defending Sungenis has disappeared from Sungenis' website? Interesting, don't you think?

          You should really stop trying to read the Feeney case back into the Sungenis case and into the Voris case. It's leading you into some bad mistakes.

        • Grant

          Sorry for posting the same thing three times. When I tried to post this, it came back saying "error" three times and looked like it wasn't accepted because of a network error or something. If anyone is keeping watch, please remove the two duplicates. Thanks!

        • Grant

          Again, it's clear from your blog that you’re all about Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (EENS). That’s pretty much all you write about. That’s fine, except that you've got EENS colored glasses on. You’re seeing EENS as "the issue" in particular situations where it isn’t really "the issue" and you’re trying to force it in to situations where it doesn’t really belong. You’re definitely doing that with Sungenis and I think you’re probably doing it with Voris, too.

          The dispute between Sungenis and his bishop (and everyone else, as far as I can tell) is centered on Sungenis’ “hostile, uncharitable and un-Christian” rhetoric about Jews. That's what the bishop himself called it. You know, things like saying that Jews “have infected our Catholic Church”, that Bishop Rhoades is afraid of Jews because they own the mortgages on diocesan property, that the figure of 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust is “mere propaganda” and that the Holocaust was the time when “the Jews turned on the Germans because they got a better deal from someone else.” Accusing people of being closet Jews simply because they criticize him. That sort of thing. Maybe it's just me, but I think that most bishops (and human beings in general) would have a serious problem with saying things like that.

          I've never seen Sungenis even mention EENS in regard to the dispute with his bishop. He went on later to claim that all his troubles were really centered on the two Covenant theory (which is certainly related to EENS, but not identical with it), but his story doesn’t hold any water. Regardless, these articles show that his accusations were groundless.

          https://sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/sungenis-standards-of-heresy

          https://sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/defense-of-bishop-rhoades-from-false-accusations#ThreeStrikes

          https://sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/defense-of-bishop-rhoades-from-false-accusations#BetterNarrative

          It's obvious that he jumped to conclusions without any real evidence, pretty much like you've been doing. The dispute isn't about EENS or even the two Covenant theory. If you disagree, then give the proof from Bishop Rhoades that he believes the two Covenant theory and that he tried to make Sungenis believe it, as you've claimed in other places. But do give the proof from Bishop Rhoades personally and not from what Sungenis or anyone else says about Bishop Rhoades. Again, I'm pretty sure that a real canonical court would do at least that much for a poor defendant so we should expect at least that much from a Kanonical Kangaroo Kourt.

          It looks as though one part of the problem is that Sungenis has been tripping up on the word “supersessionism." It's not even a word used by the Catholic Church:
          “Supersessionism, Again”:

          https://sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/defense-of-bishop-rhoades-from-false-accusations#SupersessionismAgain

          Then there's a note from him to one of his friends that shows what was really going on with Bishop Rhoades and why Sungenis turned on him:

          http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/03/by-sungenis-alone_29.html#thirteen

          These new articles explain a lot about what happened, too:

          https://sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/defense-of-bishop-rhoades-from-false-accusations

          https://sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/sungenis-standards-of-heresy

          Now, you said that Bishop Rhoades “could not even answer something so basic as ‘Are non Catholic religions paths to salvation?’” That’s an odd way to put it. I've never seen Bishop Rhoades say anything unorthodox about this. Apparently he's been convicted of heresy in your Kanonical Kangaroo Kourt because of something he **didn't** say. Sounds a bit like a scene out of a Lewis Carroll fantasy.

          http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/c/carroll/lewis/alice/chapter12.html

          So it would be good to know exactly what you mean by saying the bishop was “unable to”. It seems like you're trying make it sound like Bishop Rhoades knowingly and willfully refused to answer, specifically because he believes that other religions are paths to salvation. So, let's look at that a little bit. Can you prove that Bishop Rhoades personally received and read this specific statement about non-Catholic religions being paths to salvation? And, if so, can you prove that he actually refused to agree that other religions aren’t paths to salvation? And if so, can you then prove that he refused to answer specifically because he actually believes that other religions are paths to salvation? I'm pretty sure that at an actual heresy trial, at least those kinds of preliminary questions would need be answered long anyone with actual authority would start to even think about calling him in for questioning, let alone publicly branding him as a heretic.

          I'm betting that the answer to all three of those questions is “No”. Right? Based on what Sungenis has said, you sent an email /letter to his bishop and/or email to the priests of the Harrisburg diocese basically accusing the bishop of being a heretic. I imagine it was of the same quality as the material you’re posting across the Internet about EENS and all the dangerous heretics out there (like our heretical, already automatically excommunicated Pope who needs to go to Confession according to you). And you never received a response from the bishop himself. Right? You probably never even received a response from an official at Diocese of Harrisburg, right? Is that what you mean when you say that Bishop Rhoades “could not even answer”? If so, you don’t seem to understand that you’re no one in particular and any Catholic can feel free to ignore your Kanonical Kangaroo Kourt with impunity without being suspected of heresy...even those rascally popes and bishops who have the temerity to think that they're in the positions of actual authority.

          It’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. Actually, 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 (and everyone else) 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.

          • Lionel Andrades

            The 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.

            CANON 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

          • Grant

            LIONEL ANDRADES PUBLICLY DENIES AND DEFIES CATHOLIC TEACHING ON RASH JUDGMENT AND CHARITY

            Rash 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. (END CCC citation)

            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. 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 and accept this Teaching, he subsequently denies it, therefore he is also a heretic.

      • Lionel Andrades

        Refusal 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.(I did not call him a heretic).

        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

          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?

      • Lionel Andrades

        Monday, January 23, 2012
        TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC ORGANISATIONS BEING MONITORED IN ROME
        Yesterday 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.

        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 Andrades

        Grant,
        When someone asks me:The Catholic Church teaches that Judaism is a path to salvation? I answer yes.
        If I am asked: Jews and members of other religions need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no exceptions? I would answer yes.
        This is my Catholic Faith and I am not ashamed to say it.
        I wish you and Ed could say the same.
        If someone claims that I am anti-Semitic or threatens me with anti-Semitism laws I would respond that this is my Catholic Faith. This has been the teaching of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II.
        If they declare me an anti-Semite I would say that I am just following the teachings of the Church if someone creates a law which says this teaching is anti Semitism them so be it. I am just being a good Catholic.
        Those who deny this teaching commit a mortal sin and if one dies with a mortal sin without going for Confession the soul is lost. In this case we have two Catholics not affirming the Church teaching on other religions. They are denying the faith in public, on the internet.
        Also Ed. suggests that Lumen Gentium 16 refers to cases of invincible ignorance that we know of and so it is a defacto exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In other words it is also an exception to the Nicene Creed in which we pray:”I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin”.LG 16 is an exception to the Creed?
        Ed has prominently placed his post claiming that the pope is a heretic and is excommunicated and suggesting that I am making these charges. I have clarified that in the case of the pope we have to give him the benefit of the doubt of not knowing that there is no defacto known case of a person saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. So we cannot shout aloud that the pope is a heretic.
        However in the case of Ed and you, Grant, you’ll have been informed .You’ll know.
        This is not a criticism or judgement of you I am just saying that it is only the Catholic Church which has the moral authority to say how a person can go to Heaven. It is only the Catholic Church which can tell us what to do and not to do to avoid Hell. I have only pointed out to you errors and heresy with reference to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

        • Ed Hahnenberg

          Lionel...The pope is not a heretic nor is he excommunicated. How silly that you even suggest that. YOU have said it, though, on your website. Read your first two paragraphs in your last reply. You maintain two contradictory positions.

          Here's what YOU just posted:

          "When someone asks me:The Catholic Church teaches that Judaism is a path to salvation? I answer yes.

          "If I am asked: Jews and members of other religions need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no exceptions? I would answer yes."

          For the umpteenth time, the ordinary means to salvation is through the Catholic Church. Yes. Will God deny salvation to Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.? NO! Lumen Gentium, Par. 16.

          To requote what I wrote earlier:

          "Not all ecumenical councils are equal, and it is rare, except for the early dogmatic ones, that they taught infallibly. Papal decrees and teachings come in many, many forms and not all carry the same weight. Magisterial teaching, over time, has changed. Canon law has changed as well. Theologians opine on the binding weight of this or that issue and will continue to do so. Bishops and popes may agree or disagree with this or that issue."

          Lionel, I've suggested it before...you need academic education in how to interpret conciliar and papal statements. You pick this statement or that from a council or a pope or EWTN or wherever, and make a PRIVATE judgment on its binding weight on Catholics.

          You are entitled to do that, but in so doing you are usurping scholarship, challenging bishops, calling on the pope to go to confession, and setting YOURSELF up as God's authority in the Catholic Church.

          Try to look upon this with the eye of God and realize that God wills no one to be lost. There are many rooms in His house. Your vision sends most of humanity to Hell. Not God's plan. Invincible ignorance ALWAYS excuses. Even those to whom the Gospel has been preached may very well reject it due to upbringing in another belief system. I would not dare to judge those thus blinded.

          • Lionel Andrades

            Ed says:
            Lionel...The pope is not a heretic nor is he excommunicated. How silly that you even suggest that. YOU have said it, though, on your website. Read your first two paragraphs in your last reply. You maintain two contradictory positions.

            Here's what YOU just posted:

            "When someone asks me:The Catholic Church teaches that Judaism is a path to salvation? I answer yes.

            "If I am asked: Jews and members of other religions need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no exceptions? I would answer yes."

            Lionel:
            "When someone asks me:The Catholic Church teaches that Judaism is a path to salvation? I answer NO. It is not a path to salvation.(CDF,Notification on Fr.Jacques Dupuis S.J 2001 etc)

            "If I am asked: Jews and members of other religions need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no exceptions? I would answer yes." (Dominus Iesus 20 etc)

            Ed says:
            For the umpteenth time, the ordinary means to salvation is through the Catholic Church. Yes. Will God deny salvation to Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.? NO! Lumen Gentium, Par. 16.

            Lionel:
            The ordinay means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (Ad Gentes7, Vatican Council II etc) and so all people need to formally enter the Church agrees Ed. He then says all people do not need to enter the Church since Lumen Gentium 16 says so.
            All people need to explicitly enter the Church but some people do not explicitly need to enter the Church.
            So is the Catholic Church really the ordinary means of salvation?
            Does Lumen Gentium mention that those who are saved with a good conscience or in invincible ignorance are known to us explicitly ? Are they not known only to God ? So how can they be a defacto exception to the teaching that the Church is the ordinary means of salvation and that every one needs to convert into it ?

            Ed says:

            To requote what I wrote earlier:

            "Not all ecumenical councils are equal, and it is rare, except for the early dogmatic ones, that they taught infallibly. Papal decrees and teachings come in many, many forms and not all carry the same weight. Magisterial teaching, over time, has changed. Canon law has changed as well. Theologians opine on the binding weight of this or that issue and will continue to do so. Bishops and popes may agree or disagree with this or that issue."
            Lionel:
            There is no Church document which says that the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been retracted or changed.
            The common error is interpreting Lumen Gentium 16 as an exception to the dogma.
            The dogma is in agreement with Lumen Gentium 16 and other magisterial documents.
            Ed says:
            Lionel, I've suggested it before...you need academic education in how to interpret conciliar and papal statements. You pick this statement or that from a council or a pope or EWTN or wherever, and make a PRIVATE judgment on its binding weight on Catholics.

            You are entitled to do that, but in so doing you are usurping scholarship, challenging bishops, calling on the pope to go to confession, and setting YOURSELF up as God's authority in the Catholic Church.

            Try to look upon this with the eye of God and realize that God wills no one to be lost. There are many rooms in His house. Your vision sends most of humanity to Hell. Not God's plan. Invincible ignorance ALWAYS excuses. Even those to whom the Gospel has been preached may very well reject it due to upbringing in another belief system. I would not dare to judge those thus blinded.
            Lionel:
            Ed, I may not be a scholar with degrees in Scipture and theology like Robert Sungenis and Scott Hahn however I do know:-
            1. There is no particukar case of the baptism of desire that we know of in the present time.Neither do we know of any case of a non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16).
            2. The dogma outside the church there is no salvation says every one needs to convert into the Church to avoid the pains of Hell.
            3. There is no Church document which says invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire contradict the dogma. So it does not contradict Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) which says all need to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.
            I could explain this to a young Fist Communicant who would understand these three points since he would not be conditioned by an education in a Pontifical University or seminary.

        • Grant

          Lionel,

          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 situation in which a denial of EENS really is the central problem. But there's no good evidence that it is the central problem in these cases (Sungenis and Voris).

          What you keep missing in my case is that I've told you exactly why I won't answer your questions. You're an out of control vigilante who is running a ridiculous, Kanonical Kangaroo Kourt. You've been ignored by the Diocese of Harrisburg because you have behaved so badly - sending 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 will communicate with you -- not because they are secret heretics.

          You say that you know the truth about the Church's teaching on EENS, Lionel. Good for you. 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.

          You aren't a good communicator, Lionel, 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 (Ed being the other).

          Why do you think that is, Lionel? Because everyone is a heretic and they're afraid of being exposed by you? Or is it more likely because you behave abominably and you aren't a very good communicator?

          You may not believe this, but I'm trying to help you. I think you probably mean well and you're trying to help, but you are way over the line here and you're helping no one.

          For the sake of your soul, you need to find a spiritual director, Lionel. I would also strongly suggest speaking with a local priest as well, but I suspect you would just conclude that he must be a EENS heretic as well.

          • Lionel Andrades

            Correction:

            When someone asks me:The Catholic Church teaches that Judaism is a path to salvation? I answer yes.

          • Lionel Andrades

            When someone asks me:The Catholic Church teaches that Judaism is a path to salvation? I answer NO.Judaism is not a path to salvation.

          • Grant

            Lionel, you've just managed to become a parody of yourself. Give it up, man.

            Your inability to communicate clearly in addition to your penchant for trying to read minds, jumping to rash conclusions and pulling stunts like writing to all the priests of the Diocese of Harrisburg to accuse the bishop there of basically being a heretic are the kinds of reasons why you've been ignored. Not everyone is denying the dogma of EENS, Lionel. Many are just refusing to communicate with you anymore. Try to understand the difference, please.

            Capisci?

          • Lionel Andrades

            Grant I am presenting you the basic teachings of the Catholic Church and all you have been saying is that this is all wrong and I should not judge. Are you really saying that I should not judge but only you can judge and condemn me. In other words someone gave you the 'contract' but not me!?

          • Grant

            Lionel, if I didn't know better, I'd say you were a troll just having some fun here. I DID NOT say that the teaching of the Church on EENS IS "all wrong." Capisci? I said that you jump to rash conclusions that are ALLWRONG and you try to read minds. THAT ALSO is "ALL WRONG." Now, I'm sorry, but I have no more patience for this foolishness. God bless you.

  • Lionel Andrades

    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.

  • Lionel Andrades

    Thursday, January 19, 2012
    CANON 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

    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

    • Grant

      Lionel says, "Bishop Kevin Rhoades is denying an ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus."

      Or put a different way, Lionel never heard back from the Bishop or anyone at the Diocese of Harrisburg because pulled a foolish stunt by sending an email to all the priests there basically accusing the bishop of being a heretic. And that's what he calls a "denial" of Catholic dogma.

      What it actually is, Lionel, is a decision not to engage a man who is behaving unreasonably, a man who seems to be only interested in discord and gaining attention. That's what the vicar general himself wrote to the priests, remember?

      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.”

      Lionel himself wrote the following at another blog:

      ""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." ~ Lionel Andrades

      So, according to Lionel, this justifies accusing people of being heretics.

  • Lionel Andrades

    Thursday, January 19, 2012
    CANON 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

    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

    • Grant

      Again, Lionel:

      Where's the proof that Bishop Rhoades gave permission for the creation of a website against Sungenis?

      Where's the proof that Bishop Rhoades is "not answering questions about the faith for fear of retaliation" from people outside the Church?

      Where's the proof that Bishop Rhoades and Archbishop Vigneron have even talked to each other about Michael Voris at this point?

      Bishop Rhoades' Judicial Vicar was asked by a reporter if the diocese had any complaints about Voris and his program and he answered "No, as far as I know there's nothing."? How does that fit with your story that Bishop Rhoades is trying to shut Voris down?

      Where's your proof that Archbishop Vigneron asked Voris to remove the name "Catholic" from his program **specifically because Voris said that Judaism isn't a path to salvation and that Jews need to convert to the Catholic Church like everyone else**?

      You keep talking about "a lot of unanswered questions." That's true. You've answered very little.

      • Lionel Andrades

        BISHOP KEVIN RHOADES DENIES THE CATHOLIC FAITH
        I have been sent a link saying that Bishop Kevin Rhoades affirms the orthodox teachings of the Catholic Church.
        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.

        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.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

        • Grant

          LIONEL ANDRADES PUBLICLY DENIES AND DEFIES CATHOLIC TEACHING ON RASH JUDGMENT AND CHARITY

          Rash 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. (END CCC citation)

          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. 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 and accept this Teaching, he subsequently denies it, therefore he is also a heretic.

      • Lionel Andrades

        Saturday, January 21, 2012
        APPEAL TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF LOS ANGELES THE MOST REVEREND JOSE H.GOMEZ
        The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Los Angeles are mentioned on the website of the Sisters of St. Benedict Center,Worcester one of the communities who have canonical status. Little is known about the community in Los Angeles.

        I sympathise with them since being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not exceptions to the dogma, and neither are they even an issue relative to the dogma and this may not be known to their bishop. This error was the creation of the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits who also inserted it in Vatican Council II.

        So I can understand the difficulty of the brothers in Los Angeles.

        I wish I could place an appeal in one of the LA newspapers to get the attention of Archbishop Jose H.Gomez, the Archbishop of Los Angeles.

        APPEAL

        To
        The Most Reverend José H. Gomez
        Archbishop of Los Angeles,
        Office of the Archbishop of Los Angeles,
        3424 Wilshire Boulevard, 5th Floor
        Los Angeles, CA 90010-2241 USA
        Email: mediarelations@la-archdiocese.org

        Dear Archbishop Jose Gomez,

        Praised be Jesus and Our Lady.

        I wish to call your attention to an unpleasant misunderstanding in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

        I am told that there is a community of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the archdiocese and the general misconception about them is that they reject the baptism of desire and the possibility of non Catholics being saved in invincible ignorance, since it is believed that this would contradict the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

        Common sense tells us that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are irrelevant to the dogma and magisterial teachings on this issue.(CCC 845, Dominus Iesus 20).

        This issue has relevance since the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing assumed that there was salvation outside the church and that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are explicitly known to us.

        There is no magisterial text which claims that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience. The excommunication was lifted by the Church without him having to recant or make changes in his writings.

        Could you please clarify, something obvious and generally known, that there is no case of the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance known to us in the present time. So it cannot be an exception to the teaching outside the church there is no salvation.

        We accept Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) but know there is no case known to us in the present times of someone saved in invincible ignorance or with a good conscience.

        We accept that all who are saved, are saved through Jesus and the Church (CCC 846) and this does not contradict the centruries old interpretation of the dogma which the secular media calls the ‘rigorist interpretation’.This was the interpretation of the popes, Church Councils, saints and Fr.Leonard Feeney and it is not contradicted by VaticanCouncil II or any magisterial text.

        In Christ

        Signed.

        Mr.Lionel Andrades
        E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
        ________________________________________________

        • Grant

          Oh, good heavens. Now you're on to more bishops? Lionel, you really need to find a hobby.

      • Anonymous

        • Again, Lionel:

        Where's the proof that Bishop Rhoades gave permission for the creation of a website against Sungenis? ...

        Lionel: Ask Bishop Kevin Rhoades, write to him, phone his office, ask him. He will not respond to anyone except Michael Forrest on the website Robert Sungenis and the Jews.

        Also let him know that you have admitted on another blog that you will not answer two questions :
        1.Is Judaism a path to salvation ?
        2.Do Jews need to enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell (for salvation)?

        These questions are also difficult for Bishop Kevin Rhoades.

        I hope Ed.can answer them since he aspires to be a Deacon ,unless in his diocese too ,you are expected to publically deny the teaching.

        • Grant

          Lionel says, "Bishop Kevin Rhoades is denying an ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus."

          Or put a different way, Lionel never heard back from the Bishop or anyone at the Diocese of Harrisburg because pulled a foolish stunt by sending an email to all the priests there basically accusing the bishop of being a heretic. And that's what he calls a "denial" of Catholic dogma.

          What it actually is, Lionel, is a decision not to engage a man who is behaving unreasonably, a man who seems to be only interested in discord and gaining attention. That's what the vicar general himself wrote to the priests, remember?

          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.”

          Lionel himself wrote the following at another blog:

          ""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." ~ Lionel Andrades

          According to Lionel, this justifies accusing people of being heretics. But the real question is whether Lionel should be presenting himself for Holy Communion as per Canon 915. See below.

        • Grant

          Lionel writes, "Also let him know that you have admitted on another blog that you will not answer two questions :
          1.Is Judaism a path to salvation ?
          2.Do Jews need to enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell (for salvation)?"

          Now Lionel, it's a bit dishonest to put it that way, isn't it? There was quite a bit more to it, right? I wrote:

          "Lionel, I 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."

          Then I followed up by writing:

          QUOTE:

          "Lionel 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?

          END QUOTE

          People can read Lionel. They can see all of the questions you ignored above about your lack of evidence. All you're doing here is giving more proof why people ignore you. It's because you regularly violate the Church's teaching on charity and rash accusations.

    • Grant

      Again, Lionel:

      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.

      But don't that that slow you down. You're on a mission, Lionel.

  • Grant

    LIONEL ANDRADES PUBLICLY DENIES AND DEFIES CATHOLIC TEACHING ON RASH JUDGMENT AND CHARITY

    Rash 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. (END CCC citation)

    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. 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 and accept this Teaching, he subsequently denies it, therefore he is also a heretic.

  • Ed Hahnenberg

    Just a few thoughts on this thread...Not all ecumenical councils are equal, and it is rare, except for the early dogmatic ones, that they taught infallibly. Papal decrees and teachings come in many, many forms and not all carry the same weight. Magisterial teaching, over time, has changed. Canon law has changed as well. Theologians opine on the binding weight of this or that issue and will continue to do so. Bishops and popes may agree or disagree with this or that issue. God is not a God who lives in the weeds of debate, but is a God of love whose two great commandments Jesus taught should trump the divisions of belief between Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. We are promised by Christ that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church to all truth and that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. God wills all to be saved, and the Catholic Church has never definitively stated that anyone is in Hell except the devil and his dominions.

  • Lionel Andrades

    Thursday, February 16, 2012
    ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE TRUE RELIGION -Michael Voris, RealCatholicTV.Com
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/02/only-catholic-church-is-true-religion.html

  • Mike Hunt

    Voris is a hero. Period.