Sunday, April 1, 2012

NO NEED FOR ‘SECRET TALKS’ ANYMORE: WE KNOW THE HERETICAL POSITION OF THE VATICAN NEGOTIATORS

The International Theological Commission theological papers expose the cardinal and bishop’s teaching on visible baptism of desire and their rejection of the dogma and Vatican Council II text.

May be its unintentional heresy. Let us give them the benefit of the doubt, but heresy it is.

In the hierarchy of truths we are all obliged to believe in the Creed. In the Nicene Creed we pray ‘I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin.’ It means the baptism of water is needed for all. All means no known exceptions in the present time.This teaching is expressed in the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and it  comes from Jesus’ teaching (John 3:5, Mk.15:15-16).

Perhaps as an oversight , two of the members of the Vatican team who participated in the discussion with the SSPX representatives, believe invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are explicit, known,defacto exceptions to the dogma and the Nicene Creed. They believe they are explicit exceptions to the need of the baptism of water being needed for salvation for all.We know that the Catholic Church gives the baptism of water to adults with Catholic Faith.The Vatican team is saying that not all adults need the baptism of water since there are some who are saved or will be saved in invincible ignorance etc. Irrational ? However this is their official position on the ITC website.

Invincible ignorance etc are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the former President International Theologcial Commission (ITC), Cardinal Luis Ladaria S.J and the former Secretary of the ITC, Bishop. Charles Morerod O.P.(former Rector of the Angelicum University,Rome).

They allege that Vatican Council II (LG 16) shows there are known exceptions.Discerning Catholics know that we do not know anyone saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.This was the error of the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits there.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 addressed to the Archbishop of Boston does not state that we know cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance or an “unconscious yearning” or desire and that these cases are exceptions to the dogma.

However Cadinal Ladaria, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and past President of the ITC has assumed that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are explicit, known exceptions to the thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

This is an objective, factual error. We do not know any such case .No Vatican magisterial document makes this claim.

It is this error and interpretation of Vatican Council II that the Congergation for the Doctrine of the Faith expected the SSPX team to accept in closed door, secret talks.

The heretical position of two of the Vatican negotiators is now known to us through their writings in the ITC papers and is available on the Vatican website of the ITC.

They may say in public that they accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also Vatican Council II. However if they assume that invincible ignorance,having a good conscience and the baptism of desire are explicit exceptions to the dogma and Ad Gentes 7 then it is irrational-and also a rejection of the centuries old interpretation of the dogma.

It is the Secretary of the CDF who is rejecting Vatican Council II (AG 7) and he expects the SSPX and all Catholics to endorse his heretical version of Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance).

It is saying there is salvation outside the church since we  allegedly know cases of those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.

Whatever be ones position on Fr.Leonard Feeney, mentioned by the ITC, objectively we know there are no known cases of the baptism of desire or persons saved in invincible ignorance.So there cannot be a known exception to the dogma.To claim one knows particular exeptions is heresy. It is also irrational.

A Catholic cannot reject in public an ex cathedra dogma and then also hold the office of a cardinal and bishop as in the case of Cardinal Ladaria and Bishop Morerod.According to Canon Law priests, bishops and cardinals who hold an office in the Church need to accept those teachings which have to be ‘firmly believed’.(Dominus Iesus).

Now it is no more a secret to Catholics that it is the CDF Secretary who needs to affirm Vatican Council II, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted for centuries ( and in accord now with Vatican Council II ) and Lumen Gentium 16, not being an explicit exception  to the dogma and Ad Gentes 7.

Its unfortunate that the Vatican has annonced that the SSPX has to regularise its canonical status by accepting not just Vatican Council II as an historical event (which the SSPX does) but that they need to accept the heretical interpretation of the Vatican team approved by the CDF for secret talks with the SSPX.-Lionel Andrades




NO CANON LAW OBLIGES THE SSPX TO ACCEPT THE JEWISH LEFT VERSION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/no-canon-law-obliges-sspx-to-accept.html


Cardinal Luis Ladaria S.J Secretary Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does away with the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Limbo and Original Sin in the International Theological Commission position papers: CDF expects the Society of St.Pius X to accept all this
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/cardinal-luis-ladaria-sj-secretary.html


Mnsgr.Nicola Bux the SSPX in reality accepts Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/mnsgrnicola-bux-sspx-in-reality-accepts.html


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

NO CANON LAW OBLIGES THE SSPX TO ACCEPT THE JEWISH LEFT VERSION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II

It’s also heresy to assume that LG 16 contradicts AG 7

According to Cardinal Luis Ladaria S.J, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican Lumen Gentium 16 is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The dogma on exclusive salvation has the same message as Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II. It says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.

For Cardinal Luis Ladaria those saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) or with an “unconscious yearning” or desire are visible to us.They are known to us and so are explicit exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 and Cantate Domino, Council of Florence. For invincible ignorance and  the baptism of desire to be exceptions, they would have to be known and visible to us.

So Cardinal Luis Ladaria’s understanding of Lumen Gentium 16 is that it refers to explicitly known cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience. This is the interpretation of Vatican Council II which the cardinal and the Congergation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) expect the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) to accept in public.

The SSPX has to affirm this interpretation of Vatican Council II to get its canonical status recognized.

Cardinal Luis Ladaria’s interpretation is approved by the Jewish Left and the newspapers and media they oversee world wide.

However the text of Lumen Gentium 16 does not say that we know  persons saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience.Neither does it state that these cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma.

So Cardinal Ladaria has no supporting text in Vatican Council II. He cannot reference any text which allows him to imply that LG 16 is a defacto, explicit exception to the dogma which teaches there is exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church. There is also no Vatican Council II text which contradicts Ad Gentes 7.

The SSPX acknowledges Vatican Council II as an historical event, a reality. This should be sufficient.

Catholic priests in Rome, who offer the Novus Ordo Mass and who are not members of the SSPX ,have said that we do not know any case of persons saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.

So how can the SSPX or any faithful Catholic be expected to accept this strawman version of Vatican Council II approved by Rabbi Rosen, the ADL and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel?

The SSPX must accept an interpretation of Vatican Council II, and in reality they do accept it, which is in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.For centuries this dogma was interpreted as teaching exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.

The SSPX can endorse Vatican Council II as a continuation of Tradition, with respect to the salvation dogma. They can note that the cardinal interprets Vatican Council II as a break from Tradition and the salvation dogma.

The SSPX can also ask the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to tell us in public if all religious communities( Franciscans, Dominicans etc) besides the SSPX, can accept the literal interpretation of the dogma, alongwith Vatican Council II in accord with the dogma and also accept implicit baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.

Implicit baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are understood as not being explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla saluls or Ad Gentes 7.

So the dogma and Vatican Council II are not opposed to ecumenism, inter religious dialogue and religious liberty as it was traditionally understood in the Church.

The SSPX or some other Catholic religious organisation, could call a Press Conference to explain these points and then to ask the CDF to kindly explain their position.

Most important- do they know of visible cases on earth, of non Catholics, saved in invincible ignorance and with the baptism of desire, a good conscience and ‘seeds of the Word’ (Vatican Council II).

Canon Law does not expect a Catholic to affirm heresy. In this case it is the rejection of the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7), Dominus Iesus 20, Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 and an exaggeration of Lumen Gentium 16, as being opposed to the dogma and Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades