Wednesday, October 3, 2012

CARDINAL MALCOLM RANJIT AND THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS


Cardinal Malcolm Ranjit believes that the Syllabus of Errors no more applies today.Perhaps  because those saved in invincible ignorance and with implicit desire are known exceptions. Vatican Council II though does not state that they are known exceptions.One has to assume it.

Vatican Council II (LG 16) just mentions invincible ignorance and being saved with a good conscience. Just mentions it! That’s all! It does no imply, assume, insinuate, suggest or claim that these are exceptions to the dogma on salvation or the Syllabus of Errors.

Since Cardinal Ranjit would make this assumption, personally, he could write off the Syllabus of Errors which was a surprise for me when I first heard him mention this.

It’s irrational for him to support the Syllabus of Errors since he ‘knows’ , that Fr.Leonard Feeney did not accept the baptism of desire as an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Cardinal Archbishop of Boston and the Holy Office ‘knew’ that the baptism of desire was a known exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma.

So now  Cardinal Ranjit knows, that the Syllabus of Errors is no more valid for our time since the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church suggest (?) that there are known explicit, exceptions to the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church. They do not!

Of course we can see the error in all this but who is going to inform the Sri Lankan cardinal and also the others who will participate in the conference on the Sacred Liturgy to be held in Rome in  2013.

I remember Cardinal Ranjit would visit the Maria Mater Ecclesia seminary in Rome where three seminarians whom he knew were studying to become priests. Two of them are probably now priests .At the Maria Mater Ecclesia seminary they would say Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for denying the baptism of desire. For the Rector and seminarians there, at this Legionary of Christ seminary in Rome, the baptism of desire was a known exception to the dogma on salvation. I know, I was a seminarian there at that time.

Similarly at the Beda Pontifical College Rome they also taught that the baptism of desire was a known exception to the dogma, when I would affirm the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I didn’t last for more than a month in either seminary.

For the cardinal to claim innocently that the baptism of desire is a known exception is irrationality. It’s not his fault in the sense that many in the church would say the same. Perhaps also Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger at that time. That it is heresy also they may not know.

However it would be said that after being informed they offer Mass without any public clarification.-Lionel Andrades

ROME SACRED LITURGY CONFERENCE NEXT YEAR AND HERESY

The international conference on the Sacred Liturgy to be held in Rome next year(1)  will be marked by heresy . Participants deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the Syllabus of Errors.

Cardinal Malcolm Ranjit believes that the Syllabus of Errors no more applies and so he rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus just like Archbishop Di Noia who believes there are exceptions to the dogma in Vatican Council II. (2). Cardinal Raymond Burke has never affirmed the dogma inspite of appeals (3).


They will all offer the Traditional Latin Mass at the conference.

According to the website of the Conference the Bishop of Fréjus-Toulon, France, Monsignor Dominique Rey, has announced a major international conference on the Sacred Liturgy to take place in Rome from June 25-28, 2013.The conference speakers include Cardinals Ranjith and Burke and Archbishop Di Noia.

The Solemn Mass will be offered by the cardinals and the archbishop who are not proclaiming a defined dogma nor endorsing Vatican Council II (AG 7) in agreement with the dogma.

The participants are not affirming the dogma extra eclesiam nulla salus nor Vatican Council II (AG 7) yet they offer the Traditional Latin Mass in the Extraordinary Form. Is there not an impediment in the Traditional Solemn Mass at this conference ?

Do they deny the defined dogma knowingly and then offer the Traditional Latin Mass?

According to Canon Law a religious in public mortal sin is not to offer Holy Mass unless he has received absolution in the Confessional and made public amends to rectify the scandal.Would the cardinal be in mortal sin if he is offering Mass knowing this error ?-Lionel Andardes

1.


2.

How much is a perceived weakening of the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (no salvation outside the Church) a major part of the problem, as some traditionalists assert? Has today’s understanding of the dogma contradicted its earlier teaching?

I don’t know if you can blame this on the Council so much as the emergence of a theological trend that emphasized the possibility of salvation of non-Christians. But the Church has always affirmed this, and it has never denied it. … [Karl] Rahner had a disastrous effect on this with his “anonymous Christianity.” But the Council does not alter the teaching of the Church.

And yet they argue it does?

This is a very good example of two of the things we’ve mentioned: the danger of reading this as it’s been read by Rahner, instead of in the light of the whole Tradition.

They claim that salvation is hardly proclaimed anymore.

Ralph Martin agrees with that. We do have a crisis, because the Church has been infected with the idea that we don’t have to worry or be anxious or we don’t sufficiently take the mandate to proclaim Christ seriously. But it’s not because of Vatican II, but bad theology. That’s why Dominus Iesus was part of the response to all of that theology of religion. There is no question that the necessity of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus has a long history. But they were talking about heretics, not nonbelievers. That formula addresses the problems of heresies. It has its history.

The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted. I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints.07/01/2012

(Emphasis added: Noted the archbishop is saying that we know people who are saved with elements of grace in other religions for them to be explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It's only if these cases are known that they can be exceptions to the tradiitonal teaching.-L.A)

3.CANON 915 ALSO APPLIES TO CARDINAL RAYMOND BURKE

CARDINAL RAYMOND BURKE A PARTY TO HERESY?

APPLYING THE FALSE PREMISE: ANALYSING A REPORT ON RORATE CAELI FOR EXAMPLE

In the previous post I mentioned that a false premise leads to a different Vatican Council II. This  is the interpretation also being used by the SSPX. If they identfy the premise Vatican Council II changes. Let us apply this to a report from Rorate Caeli.

The New Evangelization: Quo Vadis?
Sept. 20, 2012 by Paul Kokoski. (1)

More and more, Catholics are shying away from using terms like “proselytizing,” “conversion,” and even “Catholic” in their ecumenical and inter-religious efforts, almost as if they were ashamed of the Gospel, or afraid of appearing as a “sign of contradiction.”

Lionel: This is because of the false premise and the confusion which results in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.

Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae states that every person has a “right” to religious freedom.

Lionel: Correct. 
A. If you do not use the faulty premise then Vatican Council II is saying outside the Church there is no salvation. So we use the teaching 'Vatican Council II is saying outside the Church there is no salvation 'as a premise.

Every person is physically free, however morally they have an obligation to enter the Church, since there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Vatican Council II becomes traditonal.

B. We can see the dead saved (false premise) and so there is salvation outside the Church. Every one does not have to enter the Church. So non Catholics are free to follow their religion. They do not have a moral obligation to enter the Church. This is what Vatican Council II says!

This same contradiction is advanced in other documents of Vatican II. The “Decree on Ecumenism”(4), for example, states that there is no opposition between “ecumenical action” and “full Catholic communion.” This would seem to support the positive theory of coercion, i.e., that of proclaiming truth and correcting error, which has always been at the heart of the church’s missionary mandate. It forged world-wide conquests of many nations to the Catholic faith, and was the cause of countless martyrs. Other sections of the “Decree on Ecumenism” (No 3-4), as well as Vatican II’s “Decree on Religious Liberty,” decidedly support the non-coercive theory which negates the church’s pre-Vatican II missionary mandate of conversion, while implying that the “fullness of Catholic truth” is not necessary for salvation. This latter proposition has become the status quo among the Catholic faithful and church elite, including His Eminence Walter Cardinal Kasper, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope John Paul II. Cardinal Kasper has boldly stated, for example, that: “Today, we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.” (Adista, Feb. 26, 2001).

“Today, we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.” (Adista, Feb. 26, 2001).

Lionel:
A. If you do not use the false premise then Vatican Council II is saying outside the Church there is no salvation. So instead we use 'Vatican Council II is saying outside the Church there is no salvation' as a premise.

Every person is physically free, however morally they have an obligation to enter the Church since there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. So Protestants need to enter the Church according to Vatican Council II (AG 7). AG 7 says all need Catholic Faith. Protestants have the baptism of water but not Catholic Faith and so they cannot be saved unless they convert into the one ,true Church.So an ecumenism of return is important.

B. We can see the dead saved (false premise) and so there is salvation outside the Church. Every one does not have to enter the Church. So Protestants are free to follow their religion. They do not have a moral obligation to enter the Church. An ecumenism of return is not needed according to Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades


SSPX ASK FOR THE RIGHT TO CRITICIZE THE FALSE PREMISE AND NOT JUST VATICAN COUNCIL II.

(1)
Vatican II: A discussion that can no longer be stopped

SSPX ASK FOR THE RIGHT TO CRITICIZE THE FALSE PREMISE AND NOT JUST VATICAN COUNCIL II.

The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) cannot criticize a Vatican Council II in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors and the salvation dogma.


They have a right to criticize a Council with a false premise ( the dead are visible on earth) that leads to a new doctrine and new conclusions. Without the dead are visible to us theory the Council has an interpretation which is traditonal.So how can the SSPX criticize this interpretation?

With the false premise the Council becomes a break from tradition. So obviously the SSPX should criticize the false premise which leads to this break from tradition.

The criticism should not be just of the Council but of the new irrational premise of being able to see the dead visible .


The liberal interpretation of the Council is based on this false premise of the visible dead, so Lumen Gentium 16 is seen as an exception to the salvation dogma and the Syllabus of Errors.


The SSPX could focus on Lumen Gentium 16 . Can we see cases on earth saved in invincible ignroance and a good conscience? We cannot!


So the liberals cannot use LG 16 to create a Council with a break from Tradition. i.e the dogma and the Syllabus.

Yet this is also the interpretation for the SSPX. They also can only see the Council with a false premise. So they criticize the Council in general and not the false premise in particular.There is a blanket criticism of Vatican Council II without identifying the premise of the visible dead saved on earth, which is a complete irrationality and is repsonsible for the interpretation of the Council which the SSPX criticizes.


It was Cardinal Richard Cushing and the American Jesuits in Boston who used this premise at Vatican Council II and created confusion and ambiguity.Identify this premise and one can have a traditional Vatican Council II. All the complications and critical reports on Vatican Council II can be traced to this one simple wrong premise.

Without the false premise Vatican Council II (AG 7) says outside the Church there is no salvation. If you use this as a premise then you interpret Vatican Council II texts differently.-Lionel Andrades