Wednesday, April 11, 2012

There could soon be an 'ecclesial rupture' because the Vatican does not want to say that there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II.

If the pope does not know personally of non Catholics saved in 2012 in invincible ignorance and when Vatican Council II does not make this claim of knowing explicit cases in real life how can the magisterium reject the SSPX doctrinal position on other religions, ecumenism and dialogue?

The SSPX (Society of St.Pius X) is not obliged to accept an interpretation of Vatican Council II with no supporting text on ecumenism and inter religious dialogue. Nowhere does Vatican Council II say Judaism is a path to salvation or that Jews are saved in general in their religion. Instead the Magisterium is unable to say in public that Vatican Council II (AG 7) says Judaism and other religions are not paths to salvation and that Catholics are the Chosen People of God (NA 4).

Why does the SSPX have to accept Vatican Council II when the pope and his Curia will not affirm Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II?

The Holy Father is not proclaiming the Faith for political reasons and the falsehood and lies are being repeated by thousands of Catholics to protect their self interest or due to ignorance.

There could soon be an 'ecclesial rupture' because the Vatican does not want to say that there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II. One according to the text of Vatican Council II and the other due to political necessity and survival and with no references from Vatican Council II text.

I repeat - Vatican Council II does not mention a visible baptism of desire or known- to- us- in- Heaven-cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience or seeds of the Word. So there is no doctrinal basis for rejecting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II. SSPX was in agreement with Vatican Council II on ecumenism, inter religious dialogue and religious liberty in the Vatican-SSPX failed talks.

The Vatican needs to clarify in public if they know any case of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance, the seeds of the Word and a good conscience.

If the answer is No then they should permit the SSPC not to accept Vatican Council II (Jewish Left version) - with the Vatican agreeing to clarify the issue over time.

Catholics should sign petitions and place advertisements in the newspapers asking a politically oriented Curia how can those saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience in the year 2012, be explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so how can the SSPX position on ecumenism and inter religious dialogue be wrong?

Catechism Teachers should ask the Vatican how can they excommunicate the SSPX for affirming the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (in accord with Vatican Council II) when there is no contradicting text in Vatican Council II to reject the SSPX position on other religions?

Religious communities ask the Vatican why you all cannot accept the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also implicit baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. Until this issue is settled there should not be an 'ecclesial rupture' with the SSPX.

Assuming Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for denying invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire (and he was not!) you can go ahead and affirm implicit invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire and also the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

Catholic religious communities who attend the Novus Ordo Mass why cannot you accept the literal interpretation of extra ecclesism nulla salus and also implicit baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance implicitly,this being known only to God ?

It is the magisterium's doctrinal position which is irrational and contrary to common sense? SSPX please ask the Vatican spokesman if he actually knows any case of a non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance. Is there a visible baptism of desire?

If the pope does not know of any person saved in invincible ignorance and now in Heaven and when Vatican Council II does not make this claim of knowing in real life explicit cases  inHeaven, how can the magisterium reject the SSPX doctrinal position on other religions, ecumenism and dialogue?

Even though the SSPX rejects Vatican Council II (Jewish Left version) they should start talking with the Vatican in terms of Vatican Council II: ask the Vatican Curia to cite texts in Vatican Council II which contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

Also, how can the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J , as the former President of the International Theological Commission (ITC) reject the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Nicene Creed, Vatican Council II (AG 7) and still offer Holy Mass ?.This heresy can be viewed on the ITC’s website.

When the pope says in Light of the World (Ignatius) p.107 that all who are saved are saved through Jesus we must note it has two meanings.

1. All who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church and this is our general Catholic belief, which we accept.There is no controversy here.

2. However the theological meaning is that all who are saved are saved either in invincible ignorance, a good conscience, and the baptism of desire etc or with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.

Then the pope also says in Light of the Wolrd p.107 that there is only ‘one channel’ of salvation. he says there is only one way of salvation. implying the one mentioned  above.

This is false theologically since the one channel of salvation in the Catholic Church has always been through Jesus in the Catholic Church. We don’t know any case of a non Catholic saved invincible ignorance etc as the pope would wrongly assume.

When the pope makes an objective, factual error one can expect the rest of the Church to be confused or in error.

I ask Catholic priests these questions and they do not answer. Some say they do not know the answer and others say that they have not specialized in this or that.When I ask them if I can record their answer with my camera they say no.They will agree that one needs to proclaim the Faith and not be ashamed of it.-Lionel Andrades













10 comments:

Tradical said...

Hi,
After reading this, I am somewhat confused by what you are saying.

Are you saying that implicit baptism of desire (couple obviously with Invincible Ignorance - full definition etc) as explained in the letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing, and in Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, is against the faith?

Catholic Mission said...

I am saying that implicit baptism of desire etc is always implicit and so it is not an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So we can affirm the baptism of desire (Council of Trent) and invincible ignorance (LG 16) and also the literal interpretation of the dogma as it was known for centuries.

Tradical said...

CM,

Pardon my ignorance, but I don't see how this is central to the issues involving religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, and the constitution of the Church.

Could you help to clarify?

Catholic Mission said...

Tradical
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria the former President of the International Theological Commission(ITC) in two of the position papers on the ITC website claims that the Church no more teaches exclusive salvation with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He cites Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office.

Cardinal Ladaria, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith took part in the Vatican-SSPX talks.He lead the Vatican team.

Then Pope Benedict XVI in Light of the World (Ignatius) p.107 also suggests that there can be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Extra ecclesiam nullla salus is at the heart of the issue.
1.The SSPX believes all non Catholics need to convert into the Church for salvation according to the dogma and other traditional teachings,
2.The Vatican side believes that Vatican Council II has changed the Church’s ancient teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church e.g Lumen Gentium 16 which refers to those saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience.
So the issue is : has extra ecclesiam nulla salus which taught that Jews, Protestants and Orthodox Christians need to convert into the Church to avoid the fires of Hell (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence) been overruled.
If it has, as the cardinal indicates on the ITC website, then the Church has changed its teaching with reference to ecumenism and other religions.

So it is understandable why the Vatican side rejects the SSPX position on ecumenism,inter-religious dialogue and other religions.

They believe that there are explicit exceptions to the dogma.

So the point I was trying to make is that being saved in invincible ignorance and having a good conscience (LG 16) etc is not an exception to the dogma. Since we do not know any of these cases in real life.

So the cardinal cannot really cite LG 16 to make his case. Similarly we do not know anyone saved with the seeds of the Word etc. So the Vatican side has no citations to claim that the SSPX is wrong on ecumenism and inter religious dialogue.

Since there are no exceptions to the dogma how can the Vatican object to the SSPX position on ecumenism and other religions?

There is no change in ecclesiology and other areas of the Church.
continued

Catholic Mission said...

CONTINUED
International Theological Commission (ITC) makes an objective, factual error in two of its published documents. Could they also be wrong about Limbo?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/international-theological-commission_2687.html

VATICAN'S INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION MAKES AN ERROR IN ITS POSITION PAPER CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/vaticans-international-theological.html#links

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION USES PREMISE THAT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT : LIMBO
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/international-theological-commission_29.html

The International Theological Commission's position paper Christianity and the World Religions 1997 has an objective factual error and is approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger : invincible ignorance is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/international-theological-commissions.html

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION ASSUMES ‘SEEDS OF THE WORD’ (VATICAN COUNCIL II ) IN OTHER RELIGIONS ARE KNOWN TO US AND THIS IS AN EXPLICIT EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/international-theological-commission.html

VATICAN'S INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION MAKES AN ERROR IN ITS POSITION PAPER CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/vaticans-international-theological.html

VATICAN COUNCIL II REJECTS THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/vatican-council-ii-rejects-theology-of.html

Former Secretary of the International Theological Commission holds that those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance are known to us and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/02/secretary-of-international-theological.html#links

Catholic Mission said...

Tradical
Thursday, April 12, 2012
There is no reference text in Vatican Council II contrary to the SSPX position on other religions, ecumenism

Only God can judge invincible ignorance, a good conscience and the presence of 'seeds of the Word 'so they are not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Cardinal Luiz Ladaria is wrong to cite these texts as opposing exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

We often get the pitch of ‘the reforms’ of Vatican Council II from the Jewish Left and if you oppose them, correct them, then they call you anti Semitic. That’s Pastor Ted Pikes experience with the ADL. The ADL’s ‘reforms of Vatican Council II ‘ propaganda has no citations from the Council. There are no reference texts, it’s just a political slogan.

The 'reforms of Vatican Council II' seem to have been cited in the failed Vatican- SSPX talks. Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, who represented the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) ,in the talks, had to reject the SSPX position on ecumenism and other religions. Since he believes that no more, is there exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.It ended for him after Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

He has made this clear in the International Theological Commission’s (ITC) website and it is still there for anyone to check it.

Cardinal Ladaria will cite Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance/ good conscience) as being an exception to exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. He does not realize that only God can judge invincible ignorance and a good conscience. We do not know any such case in the present times (2012).Since we do not know any such person it does not contradict the teaching of exclusive salvation being there in only the Catholic Church.

So he cannot cite invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) as being explicit exceptions to outside the church no salvation. Yet this is what he did and he rejected the SSPX position on ecumenism, other religions, religious liberty etc.

He considered LG 16 as a valid citation from Vatican Council II to reject exclusive salvation and the SSPX position on ecumenism, inter religious dialogue etc. The same could be said about other quotations from Vatican Council II, ‘elements of sanctification’(LG 8) and ‘seeds of the Word’ etc.

The SSPX accepts as a possibility that a non Catholic can be saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience and it would be known only to God. One can only accept it as a possibility since defacto ( in reality) we cannot know any such case.It is only known in Heaven.

The CDF needs to issue a clarification regarding this widespread error.


Common sense tells us that there are no citations in Vatican Council II which contradict the SSPX position on ecumenism, inter religious dialogue, religious liberty etc.

If there is an ‘ecclesial rupture’ because the SSPX is faithful to the doctrines of the Catholic Church and the CDF does not have any relevant citations from Vatican Council II-then this would be an injustice against the SSPX and all loyal, faithful Catholics.

It would be assumed that the ‘ecclesial rupture’ is politically motivated , one of the ‘reforms of Vatican Council II ‘.

Tradical said...

Hi CM,

I think you are off base on this one.

Firstly, the SSPX is simply abiding by what Pius IX et al noted concerning the possibility of salvation for those who are objectively outside the Church.

If they are truly in invincible ignorance (which only God knows) then their separation is not sinful since sin is in the will.

Further, it is still necessary for them to achieve a state of grace (Perfect Act of Contrition) and have supernatural faith (as outlined in the letter to Archbishop Cushing) in order to be saved.

Also, if someone were to continue living after achieving this state, it does not remove the obligation to seek baptism if their invincible ignorance is breached. They can also lose the 'state' by committing a mortal sin.

With respects to the Cardinals etc. When they sit as a moderator / adviser for a doctoral thesis, this is not 'teaching' from the point of view of the Church. It doesn't even mean that the prelate in question holds or agrees with the thesis.

Finally, with respect to 'Light of the World' the Pope clearly stated that these are his personal opinions. Ergo he isn't 'teaching' in the sense of the Magisterium.

Tradical said...

"... in two of the position papers on the ITC website claims that the Church no more teaches exclusive salvation with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ..."

I would appreciate a link to these two papers.

Catholic Mission said...

Hi CM,

I think you are off base on this one.

Firstly, the SSPX is simply abiding by what Pius IX et al noted concerning the possibility of salvation for those who are objectively outside the Church.
Lionel:
We all agree here. It is a possibility known only to God.

Tragical:

If they are truly in invincible ignorance (which only God knows) then their separation is not sinful since sin is in the will.

Lionel:
And God only would know these cases, true. So in a sense they are not relevant to the dogmatic teaching which says all need to convert into the Church. The dogma does not mention those saved in invincible ignorance etc.

Tragical:
Further, it is still necessary for them to achieve a state of grace (Perfect Act of Contrition) and have supernatural faith (as outlined in the letter to Archbishop Cushing) in order to be saved.

Lionel:
Yes. Assuming God provides the helps necessary by sending a preacher or having them baptized with water (St.Thomas Aquinas) they still are not exceptions to the dogma or to AG 7 ,Vatican Council II whichs says all need Catholc Faith and the baptism of water.

Tragical:
Also, if someone were to continue living after achieving this state, it does not remove the obligation to seek baptism if their invincible ignorance is breached. They can also lose the 'state' by committing a mortal sin.

Lionel:
True in those cases who already have been baptized with water and have Catholic Faith.

Tragicals:

With respects to the Cardinals etc. When they sit as a moderator / adviser for a doctoral thesis, this is not 'teaching' from the point of view of the Church. It doesn't even mean that the prelate in question holds or agrees with the thesis.
Lionel:
Yes.

Tragical:
Finally, with respect to 'Light of the World' the Pope clearly stated that these are his personal opinions. Ergo he isn't 'teaching' in the sense of the Magisterium.

Lionel:
The point I wanted to make is that we do not know explicit cases of those saved in invincible ignorance etc as the pope assumes. Since we do not know any of these cases they are not explicit exceptions to the ancient teaching that there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church only and there are no (known) exceptions.
Since the pope makes this error he assumes that Vatican Council II mentions exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Since he thinks there are so many exceptions ( seeds of the Word, good conscience etc),then for him, the SSPX traditional position on ecumenism and other religions is flawed. He would expect the SSPX to accept that there are defacto known cases of non Catholics in the present time (2011-2012 ) saved in invincible ignorance etc.
The SSPX needs to publicly state that there are no known exceptions to the dogma mentioned in Vatican Council II. There are no reference texts.

Catholic Mission said...

Tradical
two of the position papers on the ITC website claims that the Church no more teaches exclusive salvation with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ..."

Lionel
1.
CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS
(1997)
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1997_cristianesimo-religioni_en.html
VATICAN'S INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION MAKES AN ERROR IN ITS POSITION PAPER CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/vaticans-international-theological.html#links

2.
THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html