Friday, March 30, 2012

SSPX ASK MSGR.NICOLA BUX OF THE CDF A BASIC QUESTION ON CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

Msgr.Nicola Bux has referred to Dominus Iesus regarding ecumenism and interreligious dialogue .On March 19, 2012, three days after the meeting of Bishop Fellay with Cardinal Levada, Monsignor Nicola Bux, consultant to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Office of Liturgical Celebrations of the Pope, addressed an open letter to Bishop Fellay and the priests of the Society of St. Pius X, inviting them to accept an agreement.(1)

While appreciating the Letter of Msgr. Nicola Bux the SSPX has still not asked basic questions on doctrine.

Please ask the consultant to the CDF how could those who represented the Vatican in recent talks with the SSPX and who have been members of the International Theologian Commision(ITC) hold that there are visibly known cases of non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire or that in general they know of cases in Heaven saved in invincible ignorance.?

Could the SSPX please ask for a general clarification of doctrine on this issue.

If Msgr.Nicola Bux states that we do not know any such case then could he be asked how is this implied by Cardinal Luis Ladaria, Secretary of the CDF and others who approved the position papers of the ITC.

How can there be explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus could the CDF clarify ?

Lionel Andrades
_______________________________________________

1.
Communiqué from the Vatican, the open letter to Msgr. Bux and comments from journalists30-03-2012 DICI News

http://www.dici.org/en/news/press-review-communique-from-the-vatican-the-open-letter-to-msgr-bux-and-comments-from-journalists/




Thursday, March 29, 2012
International Theological Commission (ITC) makes an objective, factual error in two of its published documents. Could they also be wrong about Limbo?
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

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

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

Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi did not say that those who have “an unconscious desire” are explicitly known to us and they are an exception to exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church

I have come across a report by Dr.Jeffrey Mirus President of Catholic Culture. He implies that Pope Pius XII considered those saved in invincible ignorance an exception to the dogma outside the church no salvation. Also that we know of these cases saved outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church.(2)
Pope Pius XII just like Vatican Council II just mentions the possibility of a non Catholic being saved with an "unconscious desire".We accept this as a possibility.
No pope has claimed that it is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Dr.Jeffrey Mirus is unable to quote any magisterial text which says that those saved with an "unconscious desire" are known to us in reality (de facto) or that they are explicitly known exceptions to the dogma.

If those saved in invincible ignorance or an "unconcious desire" are not known to us how can they be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So how can theologians postulate that all those infants do not go to Limbo but to Heaven or that there is no Limbo.

Also no Church-document says that being saved with an "unconscious desire" is the ordinary means of salvation for adults.The ordinary means of salvation for all is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.(Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II).
-Lionel Andrades

 1.

Salvation for Non-Catholics and LimboBy Dr. Jeff Mirus


August 11, 2010

2.

On the bright side, however, such adults can do more than sin; they can also desire God, and the Church does officially teach a way of salvation for adults outside the visible structure of the Church. This way is often called baptism by desire. Thus Pius XII, in his great encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, explained that those outside the visible structure of the Church can “have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer” by means of “an unconscious desire and longing” (inscio quodam desiderio ac voto) (#103). It is this teaching that has led theologians to examine the possibility of “substantial” membership in the Church even where “formal” membership is lacking. (There is also, of course, baptism by blood—martyrdom—but that applies only to believing Christians who are killed for their faith before being baptized.)

Jesuit priest says change in Church’s teaching on Limbo due to change in Church’s teaching on baptism and salvation

A Jesuit priest Fr.Richard G. Malloy S.J says that the change in the Church’s teaching on Limbo is due to the change in the Church’s teaching on baptism and salvation. He refers to Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II.

He assumes that those saved in invincible ignorance are explicitly known to us and so they contradict the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation.

He then says “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacrament” (CCC #1257). God has bound salvation to the Sacrament of the Baptism of water . However for the Jesuit priest there can be known exceptions. Since a person can be saved in invincible ignorance and this case would be known to us.

It would have to be known to us since if it was not known it would not be an exception to the teaching on exclusive salvation. It would mean every one with no exception needs to enter the Church. Now since he and the International Theological Commission allegedly know these particular exceptions, the church’s teaching on salvation with the baptism of water and the issue of Limbo has been changed.

He says that ‘in 2006, Pope Benedict formally recognized that the teaching on limbo had to be “placed in limbo” (so to speak) given the increasing awareness of the theological understanding of the relationship between salvation and baptism.’ In 2006 Pope Benedict once again acknowledged that those saved in invincible ignorance etc are explicitly known to us and so they were known exceptions to the Church teaching that the baptism of water was needed for all for salvation and there were no known exceptions.

He has ‘updated the tradition’ based on this new doctrine of the visible baptism of desire and knowing cases in general in Heaven who are saved in invincible ignorance.
-Lionel Andrades
1.
 
 
Our readers asked:

What is the deal with the Vatican now saying that there is no Limbo? Isn’t this a change in doctrine?

Richard G. Malloy, SJ Answers:

What is the deal with the Vatican now saying that there is no Limbo? Isn’t this a change in doctrine?
The issue is more about the relationship of baptism and salvation, than it is about limbo. The teaching on limbo didn’t change so much as the teaching on salvation without baptism changed. At Vatican II the church shifted gears and taught: “Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or his church, yet sincerely seek God, and moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience” (Lumen Gentium #16. trans. Abbot). The catechism realizes that “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacrament” (CCC #1257. Italics in the original).
Once the church realized God may do more than we had imagined, and recognized that a lot of unbaptized people are in heaven, the teaching on limbo, had to change. Limbo was always a derivative teaching. Limbo was seen as a place on the “edge” of heaven where unbaptized infants existed for all eternity, because the unbaptized could not be admitted to heaven. Now we trust to the grace and mercy of God children who die without baptism (CCC #1261). We trust God can bring all to the joys and beatitude of heaven. “God our savior… wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth” (I Tim 2:4).
In 2006, Pope Benedict formally recognized that the teaching on limbo had to be “placed in limbo” (so to speak) given the increasing awareness of the theological understanding of the relationship between salvation and baptism. His updating the tradition to recognize that unbaptized children go to heaven is a real word of consolation for those in developing countries where infant mortality is high and for any parent who has lost a small child before the baby could be baptized.
Here is a local news story that I commented on that might also explain a bit more.
Rick Malloy, S.J., is a Jesuit priest, fisherman and author. He is an Assistant Professor of Cultural Anthropology at Chestnut Hill College in Philadelphia, and serves as a Chaplain at the college. His book, A Faith That Frees: Catholic Matters for the 21st Century, (Orbis Books 2007) examines the relationships between the practices of faith and the cultural currents and changes so rapidly occurring in our ever more technologized and globalized world.

JOHN VENNARI DIDN'T NOTICE IT!

He left out the 25th point on why not to reject Limbo!

'Practically every major newspaper carried the story. Headlines such as "Vatican Abolishes Limbo;" "Vatican Report Rejects Limbo;" and "Concept of Limbo Now Assigned to Oblivion" appeared throughout the world.’(1)

‘Yet despite this latest study,' writes John Vennari, ' many intend to hold to the conventional teaching that the souls of infants who die before Baptism do not attain Heaven, because they have not obtained the remission of Original Sin that only Baptism provides. They go to Limbo, a place of natural happiness wherein they suffer no pain of punishment since they are guilty of no personal sin.’

'Listed below are 24 of the chief reasons why I, and thousands of Catholics the world over, will not reject the Catholic doctrine of Limbo:’

In the list of 24 points John Vennari did not mention that the positon paper of the International Theological Commission (ITC) was based on a flaw. It assumed that Lumen Gentium 16 ,Vatican Council II was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Since the ITC assumed that they could change the traditional Church teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church, with LG 16, they could also do the same on  Limbo with  LG 16 etc .

John Vennari like the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) has still not pointed out that those saved in invincible ignorance or with a good conscience (LG 16) are not known to us and so they do not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They are not defacto, explicit exceptions to the dogma.

If any one assumes that it does contradict the dogma then it is an objective, common sense error.

John Vennari left out the  important 25th point since the SSPX still says every one needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation except for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. This mantra would have to go when the SSPX realizes that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not defacto, explicit exceptions to every one on earth needing to enter the Church for salvation.

Neither is it an exception to Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II  which says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. Nor is it an exception to the dogma outside the church no salvation.

The SSPX did not object to the ITC position paper  The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptised (2007) and Christianity and the World Religions (1997).It still has not.

John Vennari may not have noticed it and so he has not written about it.
Lionel Andrades
________________________________________________
1.
24 Reasons Why Not To Reject Limbo

John Vennari
http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/e012rp_Limbo24Reasons.html

Thursday, March 29, 2012
International Theological Commission (ITC) makes an objective, factual error in two of its published documents. Could they also be wrong about Limbo?