Saturday, September 21, 2013

Often this heresy is manifest in public and would make the priest, bishop, cardinal or pope be in the automatically excommunicated category.

The Novus Ordo Mass is valid and licit. I say this with reference to a post by Fr.John Zuhlsdorf on the SSPX Mass. The Mass in the vernacular is valid and licit but generally the priest who offers it is in material heresy. Since he rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and is denying it with known baptism of desire etc. This changes the Nicene Creed to "I believe in three known baptisms for the forgiveness of sin" We believe in one known baptism for the forgiveness of sin in the present times (2013) while the baptism of desire and blood would be known only to God.
 The Athanasius Creed is also contradicted with "Outside the Church there is known salvation".
This is first class heresy according to the hierarchy  of truths of Pope John Paul II.
Often this heresy is manifest in public and would make the priest, bishop, cardinal or pope be in the automatically excommunicated category.
Also there is error in the Profession of Faith when they use the Nicene Creed.
The priest have the faculties even when they are in public heresy.While the SSPX priests are not being given the faculties since they refuse to accept a heretical interpretation of Vatican Council II (Cushingism version).
 
 
Fr.Z
They cannot act as proper witnesses to marriages, because they are not recognized as such by the Church. A proper witness is require by the Church for the form of marriage.
 
Lionel:
They are not being recognized by the Church which uses the irrational, heretical interpretation of Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents. When interpreted with Feeneyism ( no known exceptions) the SSPX would be in agreement with Vatican Council II which would be Traditional.
 
Fr.Z
A juridic act (canons 124-128) is a human act by which a person, capable in law, observing the requisite formalities, manifests his intention to bring about a certain juridic effect.
 
Lionel:
How is Fr.Z 'capable in law' to offer Holy Mass when he assumes there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and when he assumes that Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma on exclusive salvation ?. Similarly bishops and Rectors as juridical persons need to accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church before they offer Holy Mass. They do not accept the defined dogma on salvation since they assume there are known exceptions.
 
Fr.Z
The Church is more restrictive about who can administer these four sacraments.
 
Lionel:
Cardinal Walter Kaspar for example is in public heresy and he can administer these four sacraments.
 
Fr.Z
(Confession) As a juridic act, it can only be done by someone capable in law.
 
Lionel:
Priests in public mortal sin ( denial of the dogma on salvation, Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846) are 'capable in law' of hearing Confession but not the SSPX which affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus but denies Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church since they are being interpreted by 'the church' with irrational and heretical Cushingism.
Fr.Z.
Although some separated or independent priests may have cobbled together a way, in the depths of their own conscience, to justify their continued practice of hearing invalid confessions and officiating invalidly at weddings, nevertheless – objectively – they lack the necessary faculties to do so for validity.
How important it is that we continue to pray for and work for unity in our Church.
 
Lionel:
Many non-SSPX priests 'may have cobbled together a way, in the depths of their own conscience, to justify their continued practice of hearing confessions etc' while in in public mortal sin and in an irregular situation with God, even though they have been given the faculties by the church and the Sacraments are valid.-Lionel Andrades

From a reader:
Fr Z, can you help me out with the why here and right terms.. I’m missing a piece of the puzzle?
A priest was asking me a question, regarding another person who is coming from the SSPX back to normative situation… My wife is asking about the question of licit, validity and faculties and jurisdiction.

Here’s the deal.
The priests of the SSPX are validly ordained. They celebrate Mass illicitly but validly. In normal situations they do not validly absolve, because they lack faculties to absolve (because faculties are necessary – in addition to valid ordination – to absolve validly). They cannot act as proper witnesses to marriages, because they are not recognized as such by the Church. A proper witness is require by the Church for the form of marriage.
How to sort this out? Let’s try it this way.
Not all sacraments are juridic acts, and not all juridic acts are sacraments but, as in the classic Venn Diagram, some sacraments are juridic acts.
A juridic act (canons 124-128) is a human act by which a person, capable in law, observing the requisite formalities, manifests his intention to bring about a certain juridic effect.
For example, baptism is both a juridic act, and a sacrament. A juridic effect is intended (incorporation into the Church). Formalities are observed. The person, capable in law, manifests his intention to baptize (he uses the proper matter and form). The Church, in her clemency and her desire that no one be denied baptism, extends jurisdiction to confer baptism to “any person who has the requisite intention” (can. 861§2). So, while bishops, priests, and deacons are the ordinary ministers of baptism, anyone – even an unbaptized person – is capable in law of baptizing validly.
Confirmation, Marriage, Penance, and Holy Orders are the other sacraments which are simultaneously juridic acts. Reception of these sacraments changes a person’s juridic status in the Church. The Church is more restrictive about who can administer these four sacraments. Anointing of the Sick and Holy Communion/Eucharist are not juridic acts. Reception of these sacraments does not change a person’s juridic status in the Church.
Absolution of sins after Confession is a juridic act. The priest, the confessor, acts in persona Christi and judges the penitent. Remember that the confessional has the aspect of a tribunal. The confessor/judge absolves and lifts the sin from the penitent. Confessors also at times lift censures. As a juridic act, it can only be done by someone capable in law. The Church has restricted this, not because the Church wants to make penance less available to people, but rather in order to ensure that the faithful are getting the best possible pastoral care and that they remain within the fold of the Church. Thus, the Church gives faculties, permission, jurisdiction, to act in this way, to use his priestly abilities in a performing a sacramental act which is also a juridical act.
With marriage, there’s an added wrinkle. The ministers of the sacrament of marriage are the parties who get married. The spouses are the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony. Therefore, for a valid marriage to be effected, they are required to be “capable in law”. For example, a couple of thirteen year-olds are not capable of marriage. Someone already married is not capable of marriage. Other capabilities are more relational. For example, Sempronius may be capable of marriage, but he is not capable of marrying his sister, Caia. Neither is Sempronius capable of marrying Titus). For Catholics, an additional burden must be met. For a Catholic to marry validly, he or she must marry before an authorized witness, usually a bishop, priest, or deacon.
The priest or deacon or bishop who officiates at a Catholic wedding is there, necessarily, as the Church’s official witness to ensure that the proper form is followed, etc. The Church tightly restricts the ability of clergy to officiate at weddings. Priests who have the ordinary faculty, the jurisdiction, the permission from the Church, to witness marriages, are limited to doing so within the territory of the parish where they are the pastor, the parish priest. If they go outside their territory, they need the express permission of the pastor in whose territory they are witnessing a marriage. If they don’t have that permission, the marriage would be invalid because it would lack one of the essential requirements for marriage. The pastor of the parish (or the bishop, the vicar general, or an episcopal vicar with jurisdiction in the area) can delegate to another priest the jurisdiction, the faculty, to witness the marriage. He should do so in writing. If the delegation cannot be proven, the marriage might well be invalid!
Let’s track back to the question.
The priests of the Society of Pius X, may be holy, generous, stalwart, good men and priests. I have met some. I have been favorably impressed. However, they lack the jurisdiction to hear confessions or officiate at weddings. No proper authority has given them the faculties to act for the Church. When it comes to certain sacraments that are also juridic acts, that makes all the difference.
Celebration of Mass, recall, is a sacramental act but not also simultaneously a juridic act. That is one reason why when a priest without faculties says Mass, the Mass is illicit – illegal – but it is still sacramentally valid.
Although some separated or independent priests may have cobbled together a way, in the depths of their own conscience, to justify their continued practice of hearing invalid confessions and officiating invalidly at weddings, nevertheless – objectively – they lack the necessary faculties to do so for validity.
How important it is that we continue to pray for and work for unity in our Church.

New Chapel at St.Benedict Center N.H

Foto



Foto

Foto

Photos of the First Mass at the St.Benedict Center N.H, USA new chapel.
 
The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the lay community here hold the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Vatican Council II (AG 7 and LG 14) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) which affirm  the literal interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation and do  not mention any exceptions, known or unknown.
-Lionel Andrades
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4007409004435288027#editor/target=post;postID=1606907336770650085
http://catholicism.org/category/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation
http://catholicism.org/pope-francis-it-is-not-possible-to-find-jesus-outside-the-church.html

USCCB Doctrinal Committee on Islam : confusion over exceptions

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Doctrinal Committe (1) indicates that Islam is not a path to salvation and that Muslims need to convert into the Church.
 
The USCCB was repeating Vatican Council (LG 14,AG 7) which also indicates that all Muslims need to enter the Church visibly,with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
 

 
However there was ambiguity and error in the USCCB Notification on Fr.Peter C.Phan when it repeated that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to all Muslims, Jews, Hindus and others entering the Catholic Church.
 
This was an error since we cannot name any one saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire and neither does Vatican Council II or any other magisterial document make this claim. There are no exceptions mentioned in AG 7 and LG 14 to all needing faith and baptism for salvation. All need to enter the Church as through a door(CCC 846 Outside the Church there is no salvation).
 
The USCCB Doctrinal Committee does not directly say that all need to enter the Church 'as through a door'(CCC 846) since it assumes there are known exceptions in the present times.
 
The USCCB Committee said that "because the Church is the universal sacrament of salvation, whatever grace is offered to individuals in whatever various circumstances, including non-Christians, must be seen in relationship to the Church, for she is always united to Jesus Christ, the source of all grace and holiness." This is true. We accept this is  in principle. As a possibility a non Catholic can be saved in invincible ignorance etc however these cases are not explicit for us.So they are only possibilities and not exceptions. They are not exceptions to the traditional teaching on  exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and all needing  to enter the Church, with no exceptions.
 
NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS- ARCHBISHOP THOMAS E. GULLICKSON

There are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma  extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was expressed over centuries by Church Councils, popes and saints who did not acknowledge any known exceptions in the present times.
 

 
This point was also omitted by the Americans  Michael Voris and Patrick Archbold,likewise Louie Verrecchio. While the apologist John Martigioni has said that there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This was also  the view of the American Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson .
-Lionel Andrades

 
(1)
 
The Doctrine Committee took action after the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asked it to evaluate the book by Father Phan, a priest of the Diocese of Dallas, Texas, who holds the Ellacuria Chair of Catholic Social Thought in Georgetown's Department of Theology. Over a period of two years, the Committee asked Father Phan to clarify points of concern.

On the first point, the Committee objected to Father Phan's qualifying the uniqueness of Christ and saying that terms referring to Christ as "unique" "absolute" and "universal" "should be jettisoned and replaced by other, theologically more adequate equivalents."

"It has always been the faith of the Church that Jesus is the eternal Son of God incarnate as man. The union of humanity and divinity that takes place in Jesus Christ is by its very nature unique and unrepeatable," the Committee said.

"Because humanity and divinity are united in the person of the Son of God, He brings together humanity and divinity in a way that can have no parallel in any other figure in history," it said.

On the second point, the salvific significance of non-Christian religions, the Committee states that Father Phan's book questions the Church's mission to spread the Gospel to all. He states that "non-Christian religions possess an autonomous function in the history of salvation, different from that of Christianity," and that "they cannot be reduced to Christianity in terms of preparation and fulfillment."

The Committee said that "[s]ince the book as a whole is based on the idea that religious pluralism is indeed a positively-willed part of the divine plan, the reader is led to conclude that there is some kind of moral obligation for the Church to refrain from calling people to conversion to Christ and to membership in his Church. According to the book religious pluralism 'may not and must not be abolished' by conversion to Christianity."

The Committee notes that "[t]his call for an end to Christian mission is in conflict with the Church's commission, given to her by Christ Himself: 'Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations �."'

"Moreover," the Committee said, "if one accepts that Jesus Christ is in fact the one affirmed by Christian faith as the eternal Son of God made man, through whom the universe was created and by whose death and resurrection the human race has the possibility of attaining eternal life, then it is incoherent to argue that it would somehow be better if certain people were not told this truth."

"The Church's evangelizing mission is not an imposition of power but an expression of love," the Committee said also.

Regarding the Church as the unique and universal instrument of salvation, the Committee criticizes the book for saying that the Church's claim for uniqueness and universality "should be abandoned altogether" given the Church's human failings and historical entanglement with sin and injustice.

The Committee acknowledged that members of the Church have failed, but said that "the holiness of the Church is not simply defined by the holiness (or sinfulness) of her members but by the holiness of her head, the Lord Jesus Christ."

The Committee said that "because the Church is the universal sacrament of salvation, whatever grace is offered to individuals in whatever various circumstances, including non-Christians, must be seen in relationship to the Church, for she is always united to Jesus Christ, the source of all grace and holiness."

The Committee said that because all grace flows through Jesus, one cannot consider the Church as just one way of salvation "alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her." 
http://old.usccb.org/comm/archives/2007/07-200.shtml
 
  

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/usccb-makes-mistake-and-michael-voris.html#links
 
Vatican Council II indicates Muslims need conversion is a point missed out by Michael Voris and Pat Archbold
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/vatican-council-ii-indicates-muslims.html#links
 
Archdiocese of Detroit and Canon Law
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/archdiocese-of-detroit-and-canon-law.html#links


Traditionalists have to be specific and first make the correction.

 It needs to be said that Lumen Gentium 14 and Ad Gentes 7 affirms the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. And, most important, that there are no known exceptions mentioned in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14.When the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, SSPX,MHFM,CMRI and others say this clearly in public then we can expect the change to take place.
       George Brenner :

Vatican Council II does not contradict or change the literal interpretation of Father Feeney on No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church but Michael Voris, SSPX, MHFM, others and you and I are not the Pope. The crisis of faith will not end until the Pope clarifies this and a host of other issues on the dilution in the practice and reverence of our Catholic Faith.

BloggerLionel:

Just as you are now saying that there are no exceptions mentioned in the text of Vatican Council II to the literal interpertation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Fr.Leonard Feeney I have been saying the same thing for a long time. When the SSPX, Michael Voris, MHFM and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary say the same thing may be then the pope will understand and respond.

George:
I have asked and prayed for years that the rampant dilution of our faith will not be corrected until the Pope clarifies No Salvation outside the Catholic Church, Baptism of Blood, Baptism of Desire and invincible ignorance with truth, clarity and simplicity for all to hear, understand and most importantly obey.

Lionel:
The traditionalists have to be specific and first make the correction. Then we can expect the pope to take notice or correct himself.It needs to be said that Lumen Gentium 14 and Ad Gentes 7 affirms the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. And, most important, that there are no known exceptions mentioned in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14.

When the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, SSPX,MHFM,CMRI and others say this clearly in public then we can expect the change to take place.

In Michael Voris' discussion with Louie Verrecchio and Patrick Archbald this fact is not mentioned.

The USCCB also considers invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire as exceptions to all needing to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. None of the American traditionalists have commented on this issue.

The USSCB is also using Cushingism in the interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 845,846,1257).

George:
 I think it is the other way around. The Pope , the vicar of Christ, the successor of St. Peter must explain and teach clearly the Catholic Faith for all to hold as true. Yes we can should and must pray for and prod him directly. If your neighbors house is on fire, you call the fire department and go directly to them to see what you can do. I will once again write the Pope.

I will once again write the Pope.

Lionel:What about Michael Voris, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, SSPX (USA), MHFM etc ?
-Lionel Andrades
 
from comments on the blogpost Vatican Council II is not ambigous on the issue of other religions and Christian communities.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/vatican-council-ii-is-not-ambigous-on.html#links