They quote me:(1)
This is false. See more info here. http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/cushingism-is-heresy-charity-demands.html
In the case of the writer of the post, Ed., I said it was heresy since he knows that Lumen Gentium 16 is not an exception to the dogma. he had been informed and yet as a Catholic he is not affirming a Church teaching. He implies that there are defacto exceptions to the dogma.
Regarding the pope and his Curia we do not know if they are aware of Cushingism. We do not know if the pope 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 Church is Mission. If he sees the need for Mission he could believe as in the past as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger that non Catholic religions are not paths to salvation. He could also be affirming the dogma outside the church there is no salvation.
So if there is a direct denial of the Faith by the pope only then what I have mentioned above is true.
The pope has said in one of his recent books that what he is was writing there is not infallible and he is open to correction.
What I have mentioned are just general principles of the Catholic Church applied to all Catholics. So it cannot be said that I am calling the pope a heretic who is automatically excommunicated. Let us give him and his Curia the benefit of the doubt.
-Lionel Andrades
1.
"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
Posts
20 comments:
Isn't this pope's participation at Assisi III enough evidence of his relativism towards the Catholic Church??? As if other religions have some kind of salvific value. The sole ark of salvation is the Catholic Church. Then again Lumen Gentium does heretically teach that other non-Catholic religions are a means of salvation.
Bro.Anthony: The sole ark of salvation is the Catholic Church.
Lionel:Yes. We agree.
Bro.Anthony :Then again Lumen Gentium does heretically teach that other non-Catholic religions are a means of salvation.
Lionel: It depends how you interpret invincble ignorance (LG 16). Reason tells us that there is no case of invincible ignorance that we know of. We both agree here.
Also LG 16 does not say that we know of any such case (explicit).
So why should we consider LG 16 as an exception to the Catechism which says that the Church is the only Ark of salvation.
"For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."
(UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO, Paragraph 3)
Sorry, but I incorrectly attributed the above statement to Lumen Gentium. The Holy Ghost cannot use these false religions as means of salvation. The quoted statement is heretical and blasephemous.
Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. -Lumen Gentium 16
Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is a preparation for the Gospel.
So in principle if there is something good in those religions then it is a preparation for the members of the these religions to enter the Catholic Church.
Are you saying the God has positively willed the existence of these religions?
God has permitted them.
God has not positively willed the existence of the devil but has permitted his existence.
It is more precise to say that God positively willed the existence of Lucifer. However, he did not positively will the sins of Lucifer, which made him an enemy of God. Nonetheless, I do get your point.
Next question: Does God positively will to use the non-Catholic religions as a means of salvation?
Does God positively will to use the non-Catholic religions as a means of salvation?
No. The normal means of salvation is the Catholic Church for all people.(Dominus Iesus, Vatican Council II etc).If there is someone saved in another religion he is saved through Jesus and the Church.
If there is something good in another religion it is there as an aid to help the person live the Gospel within the Catholic Church.
But that is what UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO states, that is, that God uses these religions as means of salvation, which is blasphemous. Any good found in these religions belong to the Catholic Church as the Church is a perfect society. Where is the condemnation of Vatican II when an Anglican Minister, for example, baptizes a baby? He commits a mortal sin against the First Commandment even if the baby dies at that very moment and goes straight to heaven. Here is a quote of Pope Leo XIII in a letter to the Bishop of Poitiers:
"From this it follows also that they cannot promise
themselves any of the graces and fruits of the perpetual
sacrifice and of the sacraments which, although they are
sacrilegiously administered, are nonetheless valid and serve
in some measure that form and appearance of piety which
St. Paul mentions (I Cor. XIII: 3) and which St. Augustine
speaks of at greater length: “The form of the branch,”
says the latter with great precision, “may still be visible,
even apart from the vine, but the invisible life of the
root can be preserved only in union with the stock. That
is why the corporal sacraments, which some keep and
use outside the unity of Christ, can preserve the
appearance of piety. But the invisible and spiritual
virtue of true piety cannot abide there any more than
feeling can remain in an amputated member.” (Serm.
LXXI, in Matth., 32) But since they no longer have the
sacraments, with the exception of baptism, which they
confer, so it is said, without ceremonies on children; a
fruitful baptism for the latter, provided that once the
age of reason is reached they do not embrace the
schism; but deadly for those who administer it, for in
conferring it they willfully act in schism.
On the other hand, Vatican II places these religions in a positive light because of the elements of "truth" and "sanctification" found in them.
Bro.Anthony :But that is what UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO states, that is, that God uses these religions as means of salvation, which is blasphemous. Any good found in these religions belong to the Catholic Church as the Church is a perfect society. Where is the condemnation of Vatican II when an Anglican Minister, for example, baptizes a baby? He commits a mortal sin against the First Commandment even if the baby dies at that very moment and goes straight to heaven.
Lionel:
For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."
Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. -Lumen Gentium 16
Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is a preparation for the Gospel.
So in principle if there is something good in those religions then it is a preparation for the members of the these religions to enter the Catholic Church.
The Anglican Minister according to Vatican Council II (AG7) needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. He has the baptism of water now he must live the Gospel, according to moral and faith teachings, as interpreted by the Catholic Church.
You are shooting yourself in the foot. On the one hand, you have a rigorous interpretation of the dogma and on the other hand you defend such an abominable council. God does not use these religions as means of salvation. This is also what you agreed to. VII says that God uses them as a means of salvation. This is blasphemy. God only uses one Church as the means of salvation and that is the Catholic Church. All other sects are despised by God. God cannot use what he detests. Whatever good is in these sects do not belong to them any more than the truth belongs to the devil as it comes out of his mouth. These goods are independent of these sects. All truth belongs to God because He is Truth. God only works on the individual soul to bring him out of that sect and into the Church. The fact that a truth taught in one of these sects may lead one to discover more truth is in spite of these sects. The sects as sects have no salvific value whatsoever, but can only lead to condemnation. This is contrary to VII's declaration that these sects are not deprived of significance in the mystery of salvation. These sects have no right to exist let alone the right to administer sacraments and the right to preach doctrines even if the doctrines they preach are true. God has authorized the Church to preach the truth and only her. God has authorized the Church to administer the sacraments and only her. Therefore, to say that God uses these sects as a means of salvation is tantamount to saying that God has backtracked on His word - that God is in a sense impotent because He had to resort using these man-made sects for the salvation of some souls, which of course if impossible.
You are shooting yourself in the foot. On the one hand, you have a rigorous interpretation of the dogma and on the other hand you defend such an abominable council.
Lionel:
I repeat defacto every one needs to enter the Catholic Church, de jure in principle there can be non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16).
Since I use the de facto –dejure interpretation I can interpret Vatican Council II as a continuation of Tradition and not a break from tradition.
You do not use the defacto-dejure interpretation so for you those who are saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience among non Catholics, are defacto known to us. This is contrary to the Principle on Non Contradiction. It is also interpreting Vatican Council II according to the Jewish Left etc.
Oh yes, the famous dejure-defacto distinction for which you have not been able to cite one traditional source in explaining the dogma.
In the end, I will let the post-conciliar popes interpret the Council for me by their actions. De facto, I see these popes:
unexcommunicating the Orthodox without their return to the Catholic Church, facilitating religious indifferentism sessions such as Assisi I/II/III, kissing the Koran, participating in pagan ceremonies, visiting synagogues and mosques, visiting the "sacred" places of other non-Catholic "Christian" religions, and doing many other things against the First Commandment
and yet these are all done with rare to no calls to conversion to the Catholic Faith.
These de facto acts clearly interpret for me the de jure teachings of Vatican II.
In the words of Joseph Ratzinger:
"A basic unity – of churches that remain Churches, yet become one Church – must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it."
(Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, ‘Theological Highlights of Vatican II’, pg. 73, 1966)
Oh yes, the famous dejure-defacto distinction for which you have not been able to cite one traditional source in explaining the dogma.
Lionel:
I have provided you so many sources from the actual text but you will not accept them and neither will the SSPX priests whom you know comment.
In the end, I will let the post-conciliar popes interpret the Council for me by their actions. De facto, I see these popes: unexcommunicating the Orthodox without their return to the Catholic Church, facilitating religious indifferentism sessions such as Assisi I/II/III, kissing the Koran, participating in pagan ceremonies, visiting synagogues and mosques, visiting the "sacred" places of other non-Catholic "Christian" religions, and doing many other things against the First Commandment and yet these are all done with rare to no calls to conversion to the Catholic Faith.
Lionel:
True also de facto there are anti Semitism laws and there are political threats to the Vatican. Even the SSPX is conceding to them.
These de facto acts clearly interpret for me the de jure teachings of Vatican II.
Lionel:
Here is where the problem lies. These de facto acts do not change magisterial teachings.There are Catholics who are affirming the teachings of the Catholic Church today and are living them in silence.
In the words of Joseph Ratzinger: "A basic unity – of churches that remain Churches, yet become one Church – must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it." (Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, ‘Theological Highlights of Vatican II’, pg. 73, 1966)
Lionel:
The pope has also said that Jews do not have to convert in the present times. However this should not discourage Catholics. Since objective reality does not change i.e the rules for going to Heaven and avoiding Hell are still the same.If a bishop or pope changes Catholic teaching we are not obligated to follow him since the teachings of the Church cannot change.
We also know that the Sacrament of Confession is available for all, priests,bishops, cardinals and the pope. It is possible for even bishops, cardinals and popes to be in mortal sin and go to Heaven.
So you can still affirm the Catholic Faith which you know and understand. We can let others say and do what they will.Eventually each one of us will have to appear individually before Jesus in Judgement.
"I have provided you so many sources from the actual text but you will not accept them and neither will the SSPX priests whom you know comment."
You have provided me with hearsay evidence and a quote from Dominus Iesus that does not directly deal with the dogma. You have failed to provide me any pre-Vatican II source that uses "de jure" and "de facto" in explaining the dogma.
"These de facto acts do not change magisterial teachings."
That is correct. However, my point is that the teaching of the Second Vatican Council undermines the dogma. Nowhere in the history of the Church can we find such nefarious formulations as contained in the Council regarding the Catholic Church and its relations to non-Catholic sects. As the popes are the authentic interpreters of the Council, they have justified their heretodox acts by referring to the Council. Here are examples:
"The appropriate key to interpret such a great event (Assisi I) derives from the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which in a breathtaking way associates rigorous fidelity to the biblical revelation and to the tradition of the Church with awareness of the needs and the anxieties of our times, expressed in such eloquent "signs" (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 4)."
"The event of Assisi can thus be considered as a visible illustration, an exegesis of the events, a catechesis, intelligible to all, of what is presupposed and signified by the commitment to ecumenism and to the inter-religious dialogue which was recommended and promoted by the Second Vatican Council."
(POPE’S CHRISTMAS ADDRESS TO ROMAN CURIA, Dec. 22, 1986)
Therefore, you shoot yourself in the foot by quoting from Vatican II to explain and defend the dogma. Remember that Vatican II was not a dogmatic council as expressed by Pope John XIII and Paul VI themselves and therefore it can contain (and does) contain errors.
"I have provided you so many sources from the actual text but you will not accept them and neither will the SSPX priests whom you know comment." You have provided me with hearsay evidence and a quote from Dominus Iesus that does not directly deal with the dogma.
Lionel:
See the difference!
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/08/see-difference.html#links
You have failed to provide me any pre-Vatican II source that uses "de jure" and "de facto" in explaining the dogma.
Lionel:
Do not get hung up on the words. Understand the texts and then interpret them. You may use explicit and implicit instead of defacto to dejure.
Please do not continue to interpret the texts with a defacto-defacto interpretation.It is irrational. It is used by the Jewish Left.
"These de facto acts do not change magisterial teachings." That is correct. However, my point is that the teaching of the Second Vatican Council undermines the dogma.
Lionel:
Teachings with a defacto-defacto analysis ?
Nowhere in the history of the Church can we find such nefarious formulations as contained in the Council regarding the Catholic Church and its relations to non-Catholic sects.
Lionel:
It depends on the interpretation. The SSPX uses an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II
As the popes are the authentic interpreters of the Council, they have justified their heretodox acts by referring to the Council. Here are examples: "The appropriate key to interpret such a great event (Assisi I) derives from the teaching of the Second Vatican Council , which in a breathtaking way associates rigorous fidelity to the biblical revelation and to the tradition of the Church with awareness of the needs and the anxieties of our times, expressed in such eloquent "signs" (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 4)." "The event of Assisi can thus be considered as a visible illustration, an exegesis of the events, a catechesis, intelligible to all, of what is presupposed and signified by the commitment to ecumenism and to the inter-religious dialogue which was recommended and promoted by the Second Vatican Council." (POPE’S CHRISTMAS ADDRESS TO ROMAN CURIA, Dec. 22, 1986)
Lionel:
I could interpret Vatican Council II with an ecumenism of return and Vatican Council II saying other religions are not paths to salvation.
Therefore, you shoot yourself in the foot by quoting from Vatican II to explain and defend the dogma.
Lionel:
Vatican Council II is in agreement with the dogma if you use a defacto-dejure interpretation of magisterial texts.
"See the difference!"
None of these quotes defend your position.
"Teachings with a defacto-defacto analysis?"
Novel terms to defend novel positions.
"It depends on the interpretation."
Show me one Church teaching prior to Vatican II that uses such nefarious formulations.
"I could interpret Vatican Council II with an ecumenism of return and Vatican Council II saying other religions are not paths to salvation."
Hmmm - a Council that lends itself to such radically different interpretations. Pope Pius VI condemned the Council of Pistoia for ambiguous formulations. He said that the purpose of a council is to clarify terms and not to confuse them. And by the way, I think the pope's interpretation holds just a little more weight than yours.
Anyways, the day will come soon when your rigourist/Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma will be corrected. And the day can't come soon enough when finally a truly Catholic pope will condemn Vatican II and the New Rite of Mass for what they truly are - instruments of the devil that have sent countless souls to hell!
Bro.Anthony :
"See the difference!"
None of these quotes defend your position.
Lionel:
from See the difference!
VATICAN COUNCIL II
Lumen Gentium 14 says everyone needs to enter the Church, ‘the necessity of faith and baptism’. This is the same teaching as Cantate Domino. The dogma says every one with no exception needs to formally enter the Church to avoid Hell.
This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.
Lumen Gentium 15 and 16 refer to those saved implicitly and who are not formal members of the Church. They can be saved of course but who they are will always not be known to us. Specific cases are known only to God. So since they are not explicitly known to us they do not contradict Lumen Gentium 14 which indicates every one needs to be a formal member( ‘faith and baptism’) for salvation.
If you considered implicit salvation as explicitly known to us then Lumen Gentium 15-16 would contradict Lumen Gentium 14. Then Lumen Gentium would be confusing as some call it, a mystery.
So for you Bro.Anthony Lumen Gentium 16 is heretical since it says there is salvation for those in invincible ignorance and in other religions.
In other words LG 16 refers to defacto known cases, explicit cases of persons who are saved ingnorance or in other religions. This according to you contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the traditional teaching that non Catholic religions are not paths to salvation.
So why should I accept this teaching of yours, the Society of St.Pius X and the Jewish Left. It is also irrational.
Who gave you permission to use this interpretation ? Cite me cases before Vatican Council II which said that those saved in invincible ignorance etc are exceptions to the dogma?
There are none.
So how would you justify this error and heresy which is prevalent in the Catholic Church today and to which you too subscribe ?
I will not argue with you anymore. The day will come when a pope will definitively judge these matters. In the meantime, I continue the fight for the Faith with the SSPX.
Bro.Anthony:
I will not argue with you anymore. The day will come when a pope will definitively judge these matters. In the meantime, I continue the fight for the Faith with the SSPX.
Lionel:
The Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) is using a defacto-defacto analysis of Catholic magisterial documents including the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 . There is no traditional teaching which recommends this interpretation of Church texts.No magisterial texts claims that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. No traditional text claims that these are exceptions to the magisterial texts which indicate every one with no exception needs to enter the Church for salvation.
It is contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction. It is irrational. It is heresy for example to reject the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by saying everyone needs to defacto enter the Church for salvation however some non Catholics with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance do not have to explicitly,defacto enter the Catholic Church.
The SSPX teaches that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.
This is heresy ?
Post a Comment