Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Bishop Michael Olsen has to be asked if all salvation in Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) when considered implicit and invisible for us, is no more a contradiction of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Most Reverend Michael F. Olson

On the blog Creative Minority Report I posted a link which mentions three heresies.
These errors are shared by correspondents of the National Catholic Register, the faculty of the Fischer-More College and the diocese of Bishop Michael Olson.
When one assumes that the baptism of desire is visible for us and not invisible for us then it is a contradiction of the Nicene Creed. When we pray 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin' , instead of meaning there is one known baptism, we are really saying there are three known to us baptisms. The Nicene Creed refers to the baptism of water.Three known baptisms would be the baptism of water, desire and blood.The baptism of desire and blood are known only to God. These persons are visible and known only to Him.

When one assumes that being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) or imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) are visible to us in the flesh and that they are really not invisible and unknown for us, then it is a rejection of Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 16 etc). When we assume that LG 16, UR 3 etc contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus we are implying that there are known, visible to us exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

When we assume that all those who are saved through Jesus and the Church in their religion (CCC 846) are known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 (and CCC 846) 'all', need 'faith and baptism' for salvation, then we are rejecting the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II. This is also a heresy.

To deny or reject the Nicene Creed, Athanasius Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (ex cathedra), is a first class heresy in the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II.

These three errors arise when we assume that salvation, be it with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance, is a state visible to us on earth. Then this false premise (the visible -dead premise)  is used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II . The conclusion is a Vatican Council which is non traditional and suggesting there is a  New Revelation from God.
This is not a New  Revelation from God as it is made to seem but assuming that the  invisible for us is visible on earth and then building a false theology upon it.The new theology, the new ecclesiology, rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This issue has to be addressed by Patrick Archbald who has written to Bishop Michael Olsen, regarding the TLM  at Fischer-More College.
Bishop Olson has to be asked if all salvation in Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) when considered implicit and invisible for us, is not a contradiction to  the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?.

He needs to clarify if Vatican Council II is in agreement with the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church?

This would mean that the baptism of desire is not a known exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.

This would mean that those priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass can also hold the 'rigorist' and traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ,along with implcit for us baptism of desire, as did the saints Robert Bellarmine, Anthony Marie Claret, Francis of Assisi etc.

If he says that the Holy Office 1949 excommunicated Fr.Leonard Feeney for heresy then it means Bishop Olson is also assumes there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 -Lionel Andrades
Please find below the content of an email that I sent to Bishop Olson requesting clarification.

 Dear Bishop Olson,

My name is..[Introduction Redacted]

Pursuant to your actions vis-à-vis the prohibition of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite from taking place at the chapel of Fisher More College, I have the following questions:

What problem is this prohibition intended to remedy?

Is this prohibition the least restrictive measure possible to effect that remedy?

What consultations, if any, were held with the school to avoid such actions?

Are there clear criteria or actions set out which, if followed, would allow for the restoration of permission for the public celebration of the EF at Fisher More College?

Since the offering of the Extraordinary Form is key to the mission of Fisher More College and is a particular attraction for many of its students and their families, is it of concern to you prohibiting the EF may undermine such attraction to the school and thereby precipitate its demise?

Since no public communication regarding this matter has been issued by your office, is it your position that the prohibition of the ongoing public celebration of the mass in the Extraordinary form does not require a reasonably adequate public explanation?

Pursuant to the rights and restrictions spelled out in the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, could you please cite the canonical authority you relied on to implement the prohibition of one form of the Roman rite?

As this matter is of significant and legitimate concern beyond the campus of Fisher More College, any further information you could provide relevant to the questions above would be greatly appreciated.

Patrick Archbold

No comments: