Friday, October 5, 2012

POPE JOHN XXIII, POPE PAUL VI AND POPE JOHN PAUL II NEVER IDENTIFIED THE VISIBLE DEAD SAVED MISUNDERSTANDING WHICH CAME FROM THE FR.LEONARD FEENEY ERA

There is no statement from any of the popes which show that they knew of the irrationality.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 does not directly state that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are explicit exceptions to the dogma.One has to imply it.

Pope John Paul II indirectly affirmed the dogma on salvation but never directly dealt with the baptism of desire and the issue of being saved with invincible ignorance. Similarly Pope Paul VI held the traditional teaching of the church with respect to the salvation dogma(Evangelii Nuntiandi) (1). He never confronted the false premise. This premise led Catholics to assume that the baptism of desire etc were not only just possibilities known to God. They assumed that they were defacto exceptions to the defined dogma. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger may have known that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma.It's not clear. Vatican Council II does not make this error directly. It has to be implied by the reader.Neither does the Catechism of the Catholic Church claim that the visible dead are exceptions to the dogma. One has to wrongly assume it.

The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) could only see the Council with a false premise. So they criticize Vatican 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 responsible for the interpretation of the Council which the SSPX criticizes.

Well known apologists like Monsgr. Fenton, Fr.William Most and Fr.John Hardon S.J followed the popes assuming invincible ignorance and implicit desire were exceptions to the dogma. They all took it for granted that this was the new teaching from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued by Pope Pius XII.

If the Letter assumes that those who are in invincible ignorance are de facto known and so are exceptions this would be an objective error of the cardinals who issued the Letter.

For over 20 years the archbishops of Boston did not lift the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney assuming that the baptism of desire was an exception to the dogma. Even Fr. Schmaruk who represented the bishops and announced the lifting of the excommunication at a press conference, did not seem to know that the baptism of desire was never ever an exception to the dogma.It was not an issue.It was irrelevant.

The real controversy and confusion has not been on the dogma itself but on the baptism of desire being exceptions to the dogma because there are alleged known cases in the present times. No one told the popes that the baptism of desire was not relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.  

Even if the popes were informed the issue had become so complicated they would not know from where to start to correct it.Pope Pius XII  may be knew about it but could not do anything  because of the complications with the Archbishop of Boston from where the problem surfaced. It was Archbishop Humberto Medeiros, the Archbishop who replaced Cardinal Cushing, who seemed to understand that an injustice was done to Fr.Leonard Feeney.-Lionel Andrades

1.
In other words, our religion effectively establishes with God an authentic and living relationship which the other religions do not succeed in doing, even though they have, as it were, their arms stretched out towards heaven.-Evangelii Nuntindi,Pope Paul VI .N.53


IF THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 CONSIDERED THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE AS A DEFACTO EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA IT WOULD BE AN OBJECTIVE ERROR: WE DON’T KNOW ANY SUCH CASE
The Letter from the Holy Office 1949 clearly affirms the rigorist interpretation of the dogma outside the church no salvation.

DID THE CARDINAL WHO ISSUED THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 ASSUME THAT THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE WAS VISIBLE AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA ?

DID THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949, THE MAGISTERIUM, MAKE A MISTAKE? NO


ROBERTO de MATTEI’S RADICI CRISTIANI ENDORSES LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE SALVATION DOGMA BUT DOES NOT INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II ACCORDING TO THE DOGMA
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/08/roberto-de-matteis-radici-cristiani.html#links


LEGIONARY OF CHRIST PRIEST FR.RAFAEL PASCUAL AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/10/legionary-of-christ-priest-frrafael.html
CATHOLIC LAY PROFESSOR AT UNIVERSITA EUROPA DI ROMA AFFIRMS DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search/label/Corrado%20Gnerre

CATHOLIC PRIESTS IN ROME AGREE WITH FR.LEONARD FEENEY: THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OF
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search/label/Catholic%20priests

Did Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre know that implicit desire,invincible ignorance etc were not known to us and irrelevant to the dogma?


ARCHBISHOP GERHARD MULLER ASSUMES THAT THE DEAD WHO ARE SAVED ARE VISIBLE ON EARTH AND SO EVERY ONE DOES NOT NEED TO ENTER THE CHURCH:NCR interview

SSPX IDENTIFY THE FALSE PREMISE IN PUBLIC AND YOU WILL HAVE CREATED AN INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II IN ACCORD WITH TRADITION
You cannot be excommunicated for affirming a Vatican Council II in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors and extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

ROME SACRED LITURGY CONFERENCE NEXT YEAR AND HERESY

Did Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre know that implicit desire,invincible ignorance etc were not known to us and irrelevant to the dogma?

If he did he never said it clearly.

The Archbishop said 'preach extra ecclesiam nulla salus'. He also indicated that a non Catholic can be saved in a state of grace and ignorance. (1)

He never mentioned that these cases are exceptions to the dogma or that they are known to us.So these cases do not contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma. However the Society of St.Pius X ( SSPX) priests imply and assume that they do so. This is an error which can still be see on SSPX websites.

The SSPX has criticized the supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney for saying, theologically , that there is no baptism of desire which can contradict the dogma. They have never said, philosophically, as an intellectual observation, that we do not know any such case, they are not visible to us. So of course it is irrelevant to Fr.Leonard Feeney and the literal interpretation of the defined dogma.

If Archbishop Lefebvre could see the issue philosophically his interpretation of Vatican Council II would change immediately.Since the dead who are saved cannot be seen by us there is nothing in Vatican Council II to change the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There are no exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 which says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. Vatican Council II really says outside the Church there is no salvation but may be the archbishop did not notice it ?

Vatican Council II is traditional.Never  was this clealry  mentioned by the SSPX.Though at  their last Chapter (July 19,2012) they affirmed the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (like Fr.Leonard Feeney) and said that there were no exceptions.(implicit desire,invincible ignorance and a good conscience were not exceptions).

If the SSPX can now clearly state that LG 16 (invincible ignorance, good conscience) are accepted as possibilities known only to God but are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma, Vatican Council II can no more be cited as a break from tradition.

It will be indicated by them that we do not know anyone saved with the seeds of the Word (Dei Verbum), elements of sanctification (LG 8) and being 'good and holy' (Nostra Aetate).They do not contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney nor the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

It will also clarify that Archbishop Lefebvre did not say that there were known exceptions to the dogma but this was implied within the SSPX-Lionel Andrades

ARCHBISHOP GERHARD MULLER ASSUMES THAT THE DEAD WHO ARE SAVED ARE VISIBLE ON EARTH AND SO EVERY ONE DOES NOT NEED TO ENTER THE CHURCH:NCR interview

He cites Lumen Gentium 14 implying that those who are saved in invincible ignorance are visible to us and  every one needs not to enter the Church for salvation in the present times  but only those who 'know' and who are known to us.The Prefect of the Congregation succumbs to the Richard Cushing virus.

Both Archbishop Muller and Di Noia in interviews to the National Catholic Register have assumed that there are known exceptions on earth to the the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Di Noia indicates  we know exceptions of those saved with grace 'elements of sanctification'(LG 14)  and for the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith  it is those in invincible ignorance etc.

That we can see the dead saved who are exceptions to a dogma defined by three Councils, the new CDF Prefect calls a 'development'.

Archbishop Muller , the Prefect of the CDF when asked about extra ecclesiam nulla salus (which Pope Pius XII called' the dogma' , the 'infallible statement' in the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston), says:

The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” He who is aware of the presence of Revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly

True, and we do not know these cases in the present times. We cannot judge who knows and is saved and who does not know. So this reasoning is irrelevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The text of the dogma  does not mention any exceptions.The exceptions emerged in the 1940's.

He continues:


— and not only in his conscience, in his heart — to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him.

A Catholic ' in his conscience, in his heart' can affirm implicit baptism of desire and being saved implicitly in invincible ignorance alongwith the literal interpretation of the dogma according to the Church Fathers,  Church Councils, popes and saints.There is no contradiction.


Where is the contradiction ? Why has he to mention this?. He has to since for him those saved in invincible ignorance are not implicit  but explicit.

As a Catholic I am in communion with the Pope, Pope Benedict XVI is my pope and I affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with being saved implicitly in invincible ignorance etc.Can Archbishops Muller and Di Noia say the same? No. Since they assume that we can see the dead who are exceptions.

Archbsihop Muller continues:

But we cannot say that those who are inculpably ignorant of this truth are necessarily condemned for that reason.

We do not know who is 'inculpably ignorant of this truth' and ' are necessarily condemned for that reason' so this is a non issue. It is not related to the dogma and the saints who supported the dogma, in its traditonal sense, including St.Maximillian Kolbe in the 1930's.

We must hope that those who do not belong to the Church through no fault of their own, but who follow the dictates of their God-given conscience, will be saved by Jesus Christ whom they do not yet know.

Yes.However this should not be posited as an exception to the dogma.Since we do not know any of these cases.The dead and saved are known only to God in 2012.

Every person has the right to act according to his or her own conscience. However, if a Catholic says today, “I am going to put myself outside the Church,” we would have to respond that without the Church that person is in danger of losing salvation.

True - and this is not a contradiction to the literal interpretation of the dogma which says all need to convert for salvation .

Archbishop Muller's position is irrational, non traditional and sadly heretical. He is denying an ex cathedra dogma with alleged exceptions, none of whom he can name in the present times. He is using a hermeneutic which is a break from tradition.He is using the false premise of the dead who are saved are visible to us in the present times.This error comes from Boston in the 1940's and the CDF has still not identified it.-Lionel Andrades


Archbishop Gerhard Müller: 'The Church Is Not a Fortress'

1.
Do you, nevertheless, accept there’s been a weakening of the Church’s teaching because of this underlying confusion of terminology? One example sometimes cited is that the teaching of “no salvation outside the Church” seems to have become less prominent.

That has been discussed, but here, too, there has been a development of all that was said in the Church, beginning with St. Cyprian, one of the Fathers of the Church, in the third century. Again, the perspective is different between then and now. In the third century, some Christian groups wanted to be outside the Church, and what St. Cyprian said is that without the Church a Christian cannot be saved. The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” He who is aware of the presence of Revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly — and not only in his conscience, in his heart — to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him.

But we cannot say that those who are inculpably ignorant of this truth are necessarily condemned for that reason. We must hope that those who do not belong to the Church through no fault of their own, but who follow the dictates of their God-given conscience, will be saved by Jesus Christ whom they do not yet know. Every person has the right to act according to his or her own conscience. However, if a Catholic says today, “I am going to put myself outside the Church,” we would have to respond that without the Church that person is in danger of losing salvation.

Therefore, we must always examine the context of these statements. The problem that many people have is that they are linking statements of doctrine from different centuries and different contexts — and this cannot be done rationally without a hermeneutic of interpretation. We need a theological hermeneutic for an authentic interpretation, but interpretation does not change the content of the teaching.