Friday, November 21, 2014

Fr.Brian Harrison interprets ecumenism and religious liberty in Vatican Council II as a continuity with the past : I agree with him

Here is another cite to Fr. Harrison relevant to a recent HTF blog http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/uncrowned/#comment-27296  topic:
Lionel:
Cyprian:
This is with reference to Fr.Harrison’s article on Ecumenism .I agree with him.




The Decree: No Error HereNow we can go on to consider UR in the light of the four above-mentioned doctrinal errors reprobated by Pope Pius:
(1) Does Vatican II adopt a “lowest common denominator” approach to “balance” unity and truth? Not at all. Unitatis Redintegratio 3 affirms that while the separated brethren have many elements of truth, God’s will is that they all come to that plenitude which can be found only in Catholicism:
For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone . . . that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic College alone, of which Peter is the head . . . that we believe the Lord entrusted all the benefits of the New Covenant in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ, into which all those who already in some way belong to the people of God ought to be fully incorporated. (UR 3, emphases added)
Lionel: I agree with Fr.Harrison here.
_____________________________



The Decree also recalls that while there is a “hierarchy” of Catholic truths, insofar as these vary in “their relationship to the foundation of the Christian faith,” this does not mean that the less “fundamental” Catholic beliefs—those not shared by Protestant or Orthodox Christians—are “negotiable” or can be swept under the rug. (The revealed truths about our Lady, for instance, derive from the Incarnation, not vice versa.) On the contrary, “It is of course essential that [Catholic] doctrine be presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism which harms the purity of Catholic doctrine and obscures its genuine and certain meaning” (UR 11).
Lionel: Agreed!
_________________________



 
(2) Does UR imply a gradual descent into naturalism at the expense of divine revelation, leading to an abandonment of all revealed truth? No, because it never accepts the premise that Pius XI says leads to that “dead end,” namely, the modernist idea that the different religions all just “give expression, under various forms, to that innate sense which leads men to God.” The conciliar teaching, in contrast to this naturalistic account of religion, stresses the supernatural realities of revelation and faith. UR asserts that “the Catholic Church has been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace” (UR 4; cf. UR 3). Furthermore, “Christ entrusted to the College of the Twelve the task of teaching, ruling and sanctifying. . . . And after Peter’s confession of faith, he determined that upon him he would build his Church . . . [and] entrusted all his sheep to him to be confirmed in faith” (UR 2). The Fathers who promulgated UR were of course also those who, just one year later, promulgated the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, which serves as an interpretative key to other conciliar documents touching on that subject.
Lionel: I am still am with Fr.Harrison.
___________________________________



(3) Does UR envisage a united “Church” of the future as being a “federation” of different Christian denominations agreeing to differ in at least some doctrinal matters? Nowhere is there any such suggestion.
Lionel: I agree!
____________________________________


Vatican II presents the unity willed by God as one in which everyone is—surprise, surprise!—Catholic. Having made it clear that by “the Church” they mean the body led by “the bishops with Peter’s successor at their head”—i.e., the Roman Catholic Church—the Fathers continue:
The Church, then, God’s only flock, like a standard lifted high for the nations to see it, ministers the gospel of peace to all mankind, as it makes its pilgrim way in hope towards its goal, the fatherland above. This is the sacred mystery of the unity of the Church, in Christ and through Christ, with the Holy Spirit energizing its various functions. (UR 2, emphases added)
Lionel: Unitatis Redintigratio is orthodox.
_______________________________________


Three kisses

(4) From what has been said already, it should be clear that the Decree on Ecumenism does not teach the fourth heresy censured by Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, namely, the idea that Church unity is a mere future ideal which separated Christians must work to construct, insofar as it does not yet exist. Of course, we need to distinguish carefully here between the unity of the Church as such and unity among Christians. Obviously, if we understand the word “Christian” to cover everyone who professes faith in Christ, the latter unity does not exist yet—and never has existed since the first schisms arose in New Testament times! But such divisions do not imply that the Church herself is—or ever could be—disunited, in the sense of being divided into different denominations holding different doctrines. Our creedal article of belief in ” One, holy, Catholic, apostolic Church” rules this out. And so does UR when it expresses the hope that, as a result of ecumenism,
little by little as the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion are overcome, all Christians will be gathered, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, into the unity of the one and only Church, which Christ bestowed on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, exists completely (Lat., subsistit) in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and which we hope will continue to increase until the end of time. (UR 4, emphases added)
Lionel: Still orthodox!
_______________________________________



Whether or not, in the decades since Vatican II, ecumenism as UR expounds it has always been faithfully implemented—even by the Church’s own leadership—is of course a distinct question. A further one is whether or not the results achieved after about half a century vindicate, with the benefit of hindsight, the prudence of UR’s “window-opening” disciplinary changes. I think Catholics can now legitimately debate both these questions. In any case, if this brief comparison has helped to show that the Council did not fall into the doctrinal aberrations reprobated by Pius XI in 1928, it will hopefully have served a useful purpose.
Lionel: Praised be Jesus and Our Lady ! It is nice to read a rational approach to UR.
_________________________________________



[This article first appeared in the July-September 2008 issue of the Australian quarterly Oriens. Reprinted with permission.]

SIDEBAR
The “Subsists In” Controversy
In June 2007, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith released a statement, Commentary on the Document: Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church, which sought to clarify some of the Second Vatican Council’s teachings on authentic ecumenism. The CDF statement was met with some controversy because it stated that non-Catholic Christian “ecclesial communities” (with the exception of Orthodox traditions) could not be termed true “churches.” In saying this, however, the CDF was merely reiterating what Unitatis Redintegratio had already established:

Catholic ecumenism might seem, at first sight, somewhat paradoxical. The Second Vatican Council used the phrase ” subsistit in ” in order to try to harmonize two doctrinal affirmations: on the one hand, that despite all the divisions between Christians the Church of Christ continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand that numerous elements of sanctification and truth do exist without the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church whether in the particular churches or in the ecclesial communities that are not fully in communion with the Catholic Church. For this reason, the same Decree of Vatican II on ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio introduced the term fullness ( unitatis/catholicitatis) specifically to help better understand this somewhat paradoxical situation. Although the Catholic Church has the fullness of the means of salvation, nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from effecting the fullness of catholicity proper to her in those of her children who, though joined to her by baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. The fullness of the Catholic Church, therefore, already exists, but still has to grow in the brethren who are not yet in full communion with it and also in its own members who are sinners until it happily arrives at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem. This progress in fullness is rooted in the ongoing process of dynamic union with Christ: Union with Christ is also union with all those to whom he gives himself. I cannot possess Christ just for myself; I can belong to him only in union with all those who have become, or will become, his own. Communion draws me out of myself towards him, and thus also towards unity with all Christians. ( Commentary on the Document: Responses to Some Questions)
Lionel:

Lumen Gentium 8, ‘elements of sanctification and truth’ and the ‘subsistit it’ issue do not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Even for Fr.Harrison LG 8 is not a break with Tradition.
I also agree with Fr.Harrison’s views on Religious Liberty ( on Stevem Speray’s blog).
In the footnotes of Dignitatis Humanae, Vatican Council II there is a reference to a state with a secular Constituion. When we make the distinction between a Catholic Confessional state and a state with a secular Constituion, DH is not a break with the past.
-Lionel Andrades

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-ecumenism-a-heresy

We Support the Duggar Family: Don't Cancel "19 Kids and Counting"

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/we-support-the-duggar-family-dont-cancel-19-kids-and-counting.html





SIGN THE PETITION! We Support the Duggar Family: Don't Cancel "19 Kids and Counting"
Liberal activists are at it again with another attempt to pressure TLC to cancel “19 Kids and Counting,” the successful cable television show featuring the Duggar family and their pro-life values.
The Duggar family’s central theme is their pro-life, Christian values and Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar and their 19 children have been outspoken over the years in defending human life from abortion and promoting abstinence education.

But now, more than 90,000 people have signed an online petition that calls on TLC to cancel its popular “19 Kids and Counting” series claiming the Duggar family engages in fear-mongering. Jim Wissick, of San Jose, California, wrote a letter to TLC, which was posted on the Change.org petition page, that accused the Duggar family of “using their fame to promote discrimination, hate, and fear-mongering.”
The petition has almost reached its goal of 100,000. LifeNews needs your help today to counter this petition. Let's support our pro-life friends, the Duggar Family.

__________________________________

Petition Background (Preamble):
Liberal activists are at it again with another attempt to pressure TLC to cancel "19 Kids and Counting
," the successful cable television show featuring the Duggar family and their pro-life values.

The Duggar family's central theme is their pro-life, Christian values and Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar and their 19 children have been outspoken over the years in defending human life from abortion and promoting abstinence education.

We, the undersigned, fully support the Duggar Family and TLC should keep 19 Kids and Counting on the air!
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/we-support-the-duggar-family-dont-cancel-19-kids-and-counting.html

Steven Speray is unaware of Cushingism : uses an irrationality in the interpretation of Vatican Council II

From Steven Speray’s blog:
My latest reply to Harrison:
Rev. Harrison,
The issue at stake is the redefinition of the sacred dogma on the Church being one in faith which is condemned by Vatican I. Your articles don’t touch it. We all know Feeneyism is wrong.
Lionel:Feeneyism is wrong?
Why ? Since the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma? Theoretical cases, of the deceased, are visible in town in the present times?
It is with the false premise that he begins to interpret Vatican Council II as he has done with the Letter of the Holy Office.
He is using Cushingism i.e the dead are visible one earth and so are explicit exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in the present times.
__________________________________________
 
 Steven Speray:
Vatican 2 renders meaningless the teaching of Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi that “only those are to be accounted really members of the Church who have been regenerated in the waters of Baptism and profess the true faith.”
Lionel:
Do you observe the error which has come from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949?
For him, like the baptism of desire, those saved in imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) etc would be visible and known to us in 2014 to be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
The error is with his inference and not the text of Vatican Council II.
_____________________________________________________
 
Steven Speray:
The external forum is presumed as it continues, “…so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered — so the Lord commands — as a heathen and a publican.”
To the contrary, Vatican 2 implies that if a man refuse to hear the Church let him NOT be considered as a heathen and a publican, but as a Christian who doesn’t have the fullness of the truth: “Speaking of the members of these Communities, it declares: ‘All those justified by faith through Baptism are incorporated into Christ. They therefore have a right to be honoured by the title of Christian, and are properly regarded as brothers and sisters in the Lord by the sons and daughters of the Catholic Church’.” (UR 3 and UUS 13)
Lionel:
They are our brothers and sisters in Christ and they need to convert into the Catholic Church with Catholic faith (AG 7) for salvation.UR 3 does not say they are saved. Instead there are passages in UR which support AG 7 and mention that they are not in full ecclesiastical communion.
_____________________________________________
 
Steven Speray:
 
“Incorporated into Christ” and “in the Lord” means that baptized non-Catholics are members of the Church or else they wouldn’t be incorporated or in Christ.
Lionel:
It does not state that these persons who are incorporated in the Church, as possibilities, known to God only, are visible and known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This has to be wrongly inferred. The text does not state it.
__________________________________________
 
Steven Speray:
Vatican 2 assumes every baptized non-Catholic is invincibly ignorant, an assumption it’s utterly incapable of making because only God judges the internal forum.
Lionel:
No where does Vatican Council II make this statement.
If it did it would contradict AG 7 and LG 14.
_________________________________________________
 
Steven Speray:
This new teaching is why Catholic Answers refers to Protestants and Eastern Orthodox (the other lung of the Church?) as members of the Body of Christ and why in a 2002 debate, Patrick Madrid says the same of notorious anti-Catholic apologist James White.
Lionel:
Karl Keating, Patrick Madrid and other speakers at EWTN in general use the irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
______________________________________
 
Steven Speray:
John Paul II even approved the Balamand statement in UUS 59 which recognizes a false religion as part of the Church of Christ.So now it’s not just baptized non-Catholics but their false religions that make up the one Church of Christ.
Lionel:
Regarding the Balamand Declaration see this link:
‘It is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church’ in Rome, in 2014, for example?. Legion of Christ priest does not answer
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/it-is-not-always-required-that-person.html#links

______________________________________________
 
Steven Speray:
It’s so blatantly obvious this new teaching under the pretext of a more profound understanding is an abandonment of the sacred dogma in the same sense as Holy Mother Church once declared. It clearly falls under the condemnation of Vatican I. Therefore, the new ecclesiology is anathematized.
Lionel:
It is anathematized when the inference is used in the interpretation.It is heretcial.The sedevacantists CMRI and MHFM use the same irrational inference as do Karl Keating, Patrick Madrid and other apologists who are traditional on other aspects of the Catholic Faith.
__________________________________________________

Steven Speray:

It’s astounding you defend it, meaning you don’t really believe in the Catholic Faith.
Steven Speray
Lionel:
Steven is not aware of the difference between Cushingism and Feeneyism.It is Cushingism, which he uses in the interpretation of Church documents, that is irrational and non traditional.
-Lionel Andrades
___________________________________________
 

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Video : who founded your church?

SSPX (USA) repeats the error in the Letter of the Holy Office : contradicts the dogma defined three times and also Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7)



On the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX/USA) website there is a criticism of Fr.Leonard Feeney's alleged teachings.

The SSPX and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 contradict the dogma defined three times and also Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7).

According to the dogma and Vatican Council II (AG 7) every one needs to be a member of the Catholic Church.This is the defacto requirement. In 2014 we do not know any one saved or going to be saved 'united to her  by desire and longing'.So this is factually incorrect. The Holy Office is assuming that possibilities of salvation, hypothetical cases are defacto known in the present times.
So what if there is a case in invincible ignorant ?. It is not objective for us. It is not explicit. It has nothing to do with the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Those who are united to the Church only by implicit desire and saved are unknown to us in 2014. They are unknown to us over the last 100 years or more.They were unknown also during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.When we do not know any such case personally and cannot in future know any such case then why should we claim that someone is saved united to the Church only by implicit desire?


Fr. Feeney and Catholic doctrine
A reissue of the article appearing in Verbum, No. 24 (1986), prefaced by the previous Editorial, clarifying the teaching of the Church regarding Baptism
Conclusion
Let us finally quote the letter of the Holy Office condemning Fr. Feeney’s teaching:

That one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.(According to the dogma and Vatican Council II (AG 7) every one needs to be a member of the Catholic Church.This is the defacto requirement. In 2014 we do not know any one saved or going to be saved 'united to her  by desire and longing'.So this is factually incorrect. The Holy Office is assuming that possibilities of salvation, hypothetical cases are defacto known in the present times) However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wants his will to be conformed to the Will of God.(So what if there is a case with invincible ignorant ?. It is not objective for us. It is not explicit. It has nothing to do with the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Mistake compounded!) These things are clearly taught in the dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943 (Mystici Corporis)(He does not say that there are visible cases of persons saved with the baptism of desire etc. Neither does he state there that these cases are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus)... he mentions those who are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer "by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation; (He does not state that these cases are visible exceptions to the dogma or that these cases cannot be followed by the baptism of water.So one cannot assume all this and suggest Pope Pius XII said it) but on the other hand, he states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church!" With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire (those who are united to the Church only by implicit desire and saved are unknown to us in 2014. They are unknown to us over the last 100 years or more.They were unknown also during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.When we do not know any such case personally and cannot in future know any such case then why should we claim that someone is saved united to the Church only by implicit desire?), and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally as well in every religion. (Letter to the Archbishop of Boston, August 8, 1949).


Lumen Gentium 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance) means saved in invincible ignorance followed by the baptism of water according to Ad Gentes 7

SSPX PRIOR AT ALBANO,ITALY SAYS WE DON'T KNOW ANYONE SAVED IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE AND THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/02/sspx-prior-at-albanoitaly-says-we-dont.html

SSPX PRIESTS IN ALBANO,ITALY DISAGREE WITH U.S WEBSITE: THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS IN VATICAN COUNCIL II http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/sspx-priests-in-albanoitaly-disagree.html

Lumen Gentium 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance) means saved in invincible ignorance followed by the baptism of water according to Ad Gentes 7


















Lumen Gentium  16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) means saved in invincible ignorance followed by the baptism of water according to Ad Gentes 7. According to Ad Gentes 7 all need the baptism of water for salvation. This would also include those saved in invincible ignorance (16), seeds of the Word (AG 11), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) etc.

Lumen Gentium 16 ,is referring to a hypothetical case. It is a theoretical case for us. We cannot see or meet someone saved with initial invincible ignorance of the Catholic Faith followed by instructions in the Faith with the baptism of water .
We do not know any one saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire in 2014. So the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a mistake when it suggested that these cases were exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma  according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
The secular media usually interprets Lumen Gentium 16 as referring to cases saved without the baptism of water,However the text of Vatican Council II does not state that these cases are saved with or without the baptism of water,l They only refer to a possibility.A hypothetical possibility similar to the baptism of desire for a catechumen who dies without having received the baptism of water.
If there is a catechumen who has not received the baptism of water and held a genuine desire God will save him in the way he chooses. However it will always include the baptism of water. This person could  also be sent back to earth to be baptized with water. This was the experience of the saints including St. Francis Xavier. We cannot say that he will be saved only with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water.Since this is a theoretical case. We do not know any one in particular saved as such. We do not know if St. Emerentina was baptised with water or sent back to earth to be baptized with water.If someone was saved without the baptism of water it would be a contradiction of Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14.
Anyway, with or without the baptism of water, they are not known exceptions in 2014 to all adults needing Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (AG 7) . This is also the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church according to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of Pope Pius XII etc.

So there is nothing in Vatican Council II, which contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam, nulla salus as it was traditionally known. Vatican Council II is  Feeneyite.
It does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted by Fr.Leonard  Feeney.The baptism of desire  and invin cible ignorance being theoretical for us, are irrelevant to all defacto needing the baptism of water , given to adults with Catholic Faith, in 2014.-Lionel Andrades

Fr.Brian Harrison supports the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which contradicts the teaching on the Social Kingship of Christ

Uncrowned
Fr.Brian Harrison says Vatican Council II affirms the  Social Kingship of Christ and that we must do the same. However he supports the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which infers that there is salvation outside the Church.

If there is salvation outside the Church, the position of the liberals at the International  Thelogical Commission, etc, then why proclaim the Social Kingship of Christ?
Here are some blog posts related to Fr. Harrison who has stopped writing on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades

 

Fr.Brian Harrison is revising for the community of Fr.Leonard Feeney (catholism.org) a 33 page article which suggests there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/05/frbrian-harrison-is-revising-for.html#links

Notice, he has no apologetics but is calling for prayers

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/05/still-no-theological-response-from.html#links

MICHAEL DAVIS MADE A MISTAKE ON THE ISSUE OF VATICAN COUNCIL II AND OTHER RELIGIONS : ALSO ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY ?


Theological Journal unprofessional http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/10/theological-journal-unprofessional.html#links


Redemptoris Missio does not contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney


Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is still in heresy :visible to us baptism of desire and invincible ignorance contradicts a defined dogma

 
_____________________________________________________