POPE BENEDICT XVI AUTOMATICALLY EXCOMMUNICATED
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
DOES THE POPE REALLY SAY IN LIGHT OF THE WORLD THAT JEWS DO NOT HAVE TO CONVERT IN THE PRESENT TIMES ?
POPE SAYS REVISED GOOD FRIDAY PRAYER IS NOT FOR THE CONVERSION OF THE JEWS ? EARTHQUAKE SHIFT IN CATHOLIC TEACHING ?
IF TISSA BALASURIYA WAS EXCOMMUNICATED WHY NOT CARDINAL BERTONE, VATICAN SECRETARY OF STATE?
CARDINAL ANGELO BAGNASCO INDICATES HOLY FATHER POPE BENEDICT XVI IS FALLIBLE AND IN HERESY
WHAT I BELIEVE AS A CATHOLIC AND WHICH IS THE OFFICIAL TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BEFORE AND AFTER VATICAN COUNCIL II
__________________________________________
With reference to the post Michael Dimond: Fear Monger and Poor Exegete on the Bellarmine Report I would like to say :-
Council of Trent does not say if the Baptism of Desire is de facto or de jure known to us.
First they wrote off the baptism of desire of Trent, then the MHFM assumes it is real and not hypothetical for us, and then, anyone who affirms the baptism of desire is called a heretic.
For centuries the Church knew that the baptism of desire was not known to us in particular cases it was accepted in principle only. It could only be accepted in principle; it was not repeatable like the baptism of water. We could not administer the baptism of desire and so it did not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. (Cantate Domino, Council of Trent 1441).
The Most Holy Family Monastery, New York sedevacantists for whom a defacto-known- to- us- in- the- present- times- baptism of desire is central to their media apostolate, accuse Catholics of being in heresy since they, affirm the baptism of desire. The sedevacantists conclude this must contradict the dogma Cantate Domino.
It is true to reject an ex cathedra dogma is a mortal sin and there are Catholics who have rejected the dogma Cantate Domino, extra ecclesiam nulla salus either through ignorance or misinformation or fear of persecution. So the Dimond brothers are correct on this aspect of the truth.
However when one affirms the baptism of desire, it is not a rejection of Cantate Domino, since the baptism of desire is always a concept for us. It is hypothetical. It can only be de facto for God. We do not know a single case in the present times or in the past. No one says there were four baptism of desire cases in Rome last month, or three in New York last year.
Since we do not know of a single case how can it contradict the dogma which says everyone must be an explicit member of the Catholic Church for salvation?
The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance cases are implicit and so we do not know any such person saved implicitly.
The Council of Trent mentions the baptism of desire but does not claim that it is defacto, explicitly known to us as the MHFM would imply, infer and then assume.
So Peter and Michael Dimond reject the Council of Trent on the baptism of desire while all over their website they are emphasizing Catholic Tradition. They then assume the baptism of desire is explicitly known to us and then conclude that there are so many Catholics who are in heresy.
1) The MHFM do not make the explicit-implicit, defacto-dejure, distinction.
2) They assume Vatican Council II on the issue of extra ecclesiam nulla salus contradicts Cantate Domino since for them invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) is de facto and not in the de jure category.
This was the error made by Cardinal Richard Cushing, Archbishop of Boston along with the Jesuits there. It was picked up by the secular media and supported by dissenters. The sedevacantists have also, perhaps, unknowingly, made the same false assumption. They are using the false propaganda.
The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has not been retracted by the Vatican. There is no Church document which makes this claim.
Since the baptism of desire is not de facto known to us there is no text in Vatican Council II which contradicts Cantate Domino.
Fr.Leonard Feeney held the same position as Cantate Domino so how could be excommunicated for heresy as the secular propaganda claims?
Since there is no baptism of desire that we know of Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct in saying there is no baptism of desire (that we know of).
The problem still exists of Catholics denying Cantate Domino by claiming that Vatican Council II or the Fr.Leonard Feeney Case has changed this teaching.When done intentionally this is a sin.
There are others who interpret the Catechism as a break from Tradition and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. When done intentionally it is a rejection of the dogma and heresy.
A Catholic who has been informed many times and still rejects Cantate Domino on his website or on a public forum is in public mortal sin. A person in public mortal sin is not to receive the Eucharist until he has received absolution at the Confessional and removed the public scandal.
One cannot for example promote abortion or have an abortion because of financial or other worldly interests. One cannot commit a mortal sin, e.g deny an ex cathedra dogma, to protect ones life style, job, reputation or other worldly interests.
According to Veritatis Splendor a mortal sin is a mortal sin and the external act indicates the internal intention. This is very different from some of the misinterpretations of mortal sin based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
According to Canon Law a priest in mortal sin is not to offer Mass in that condition. Similarly a lay man in public mortal sin should not commit a sacrilege and receive the Eucharist until he has gone for Confession..
COUNCIL OF TRENT DOES NOT SAY IF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS DEFACTO OR DE JURE KNOWN TO US
The Council of Trent mentions the baptism of desire but does not say if it is de facto or de jure known to us. Just about everyone, from the Most Holy Family Monastery to the Urbaniana, Angelicum, Gregorian and other Pontifical Universities in Rome assume, its is de facto known to us in the present times.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
Canon IV-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.”-Council of Trent
See the error of the Dimond brothers here.
Those who believe in this latter idea (that baptism of desire can apply to Jews or Muslims, etc.) would have to immediately abandon it upon seeing any of the infallible definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation. If not, they are definitely heretics who have been automatically excommunicated from the Church. One could not reasonably believe that members of non-Catholic religions being saved is compatible with Outside the Church There is No Salvation.- page 167 Most Holy Family Monastery,NY-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment