The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII has made a mistake.It assumed the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicit. It inferred that they are physically visible for us and so are known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water.Hypothetical cases were assumed to be defacto.Theoretical cases accepted in faith became known in reality exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This error is made in general by the Society of St.Pius X.The faulty reasoning is used in their interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Father Pierpaolo Petrucci, the District Superior of the SSPX,Italy (Fraternita Sacerdotale San Pio X) has used this faulty reasoning on two videos which can be watched on Youtube.The same error is there in a book published by the SSPX,Rimini, Italy.
In Terza Giornata Tradizione 2012. Intervento don Pierpaolo Petrucci he begins speaking about present day Ecumenism in the Catholic Church (51:10).For him it contradicts the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (51:59). He assumes that Lumen Gentium 8, subsistit it. contradicts the dogma.Then he also mentions Unitatis Redintigratio 3,' the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.'
Fr.Petrucci says other religions have become means of salvation in Vatican Council II and that this teaching has been condemned by the magisterium. To be saved he says one needs to be a member of one Church, the Catholic Church.
He also mentions (54:17) Nostra Aetate 2 the Church ' regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.'
'often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men' is controversial for him.This doctrine contradicts the magisterium of the Church he says.The same Truth from the Church does not also come from other religions.The result of all this confusion he concludes is that there is no mission and evangelisation in the Catholic Church(55.10)
Don Pierpaolo Petrucci infers that those non Catholics saved in their religion (LG 8,UR 3,NA 2) are not just hypothetical possibilities but known cases in reality. So they become exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus for him.
For them these cases are not implicit and invisible for us but explicit and seen in the flesh.So he infers that they contradict the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
He has picked up the error from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in which it is assumed that implicit for us baptism of desire etc are explicit for us and so are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
'subsistit it' is not a VISIBLE exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is the MISSING LINK we have to be aware of it when interpreting Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston and some other magisterial documents (Redemptoris Mission, Mystici Corporis etc).
'subsistit it' is not a VISIBLE exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is the MISSING LINK we have to be aware of it when interpreting Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston and some other magisterial documents (Redemptoris Mission, Mystici Corporis etc).
Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci has not mentioned Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.AG 7 is placed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church titled Outside the Church No Salvation(CCC 846).LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 (implicit for us) do not contradict AG 7 which says all need explicit for us 'faith and baptism' for salvation.
For the SSPX District Superior LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 is explicit and so it would be an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
For me LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 is implicit and not physically visible so Vatican Council II affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in AG 7 and there are no known exceptions mentioned.
When Vatican Council II is in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus there is no change in the Catholic Church's position on Ecumenism and other religions.The ecclesiology of the church is the same.
Don Pierpaolo Petrucci has made the same error in an interview with Italian television Romauno: Intervista a don Pierpaolo Petrucci.The interviewer was also not aware of the inmplicit for us-explicit for us distinction.
(6:25) Don Pierpaolo Petrucci says that the Catholic Church is the one true religion founded by Jesus Christ the only Saviour yet Vatican Council II says all religions are paths to salvation and that all religions are means of salvation (6:53).
Vatican Council II does not say that all religions are equal paths to salvation unless one assumes that salvation mentioned in the Council is visible to us. Then the Council becomes a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
How can being saved in imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) and 'good and holy' things in other religions(NA 2) be known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? This was the error made by Don Pierpaolo Petrucci in a article he had written on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the loss of the missionary spirit in the Catholic Church Church Atti del Convegno di Studi Cattolici, Rimini 2012. 1 On page 39 he mentions the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.On page 47 he refers to the errors which has entered the Council. On p.49 he refers to Unitatis Redintigratio and on page 51 Nostra Aetate 2.
The problem can be traced to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. -Letter of the Holy Office 1949
'only in the desire and longing' have nothing to do with the centuries old teaching which says all need to convert.There is no visible case of someone saved ' only in the desire and longing'. So it is not an exception to the dogma.Neither is it relevant. What has 'only in the desire and longing' to do, for example, with everyone physically needing to enter the Church in 2014 with the baptism of water,for salvation ?
Desire and longing have nothing to do with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. These cases are not explicit as it is being suggested here.
No pope or saint, who has referred to the baptism of desire, has said that it is visible for us. Rationally we know that the baptism of desire is always implicit for us and explicit for God. This is a given.
It is assumed in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 that these cases are visible to us and so are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Did Pope Pius XII make a mistake ?
This is theology based on visible to us baptism of desire.These cases are not known to us and here a theology has been built upon this error.
The theology is based on a false premise that of being able to see the dead-saved.This is irrational. How can the deceased-saved be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Yet this is the error repeated by Fr.Petrucci.
"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
"are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," refer to cases which are implicit for us.To be seen in real life they would have to be ghosts.So they are not exceptions.
'certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts 20:28)'.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
'submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church".The authorities of the Church were telling Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center that there is known salvation outside the Church.This is a new doctrine. There was known salvation for them since the deceased saved with implicit desire and in invincible ignorance were allegedly visible in the flesh for them to be exceptions.The Holy Spirit cannot teach this irrationality.
To claim that there are known exceptions to a dogma defined by three Church Councils and which Pope Pius XII called an 'infallible teaching' is heresy. It is also a rejection of the Nicene Creed ' I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin'.This refers to the baptism of water only. It is being implied in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 that there are three or more known baptisms,water, desire, blood etc.
The SSPX priest Fr.Francois Laisney on the official website makes the same factual error as Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci. 2
The same faulty reasoning as the SSPX, is being used by the Vatican Curia and the liberals. So Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci is correct when he says that Vatican Council II ( with the false premise) is a break with Tradition. He is not aware that Vatican Council II ( without the false premise of the dead being visible exceptions to the dogma) is not a break with Tradition.
The same faulty reasoning as the SSPX, is being used by the Vatican Curia and the liberals. So Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci is correct when he says that Vatican Council II ( with the false premise) is a break with Tradition. He is not aware that Vatican Council II ( without the false premise of the dead being visible exceptions to the dogma) is not a break with Tradition.
-Lionel Andrades
1.
.
Atti del XX Convegno di Studi Cattolici, Rimini 2012. Concilio Vaticano II e la salvezza delle anime, la morte dello spirit missionario di Don Pierpaolo Petrucci pp.39-58. Published by Fraternita Sacredotale San Pio X in collaboration with La Tradizione Cattolica.
p.39 Fuori dellaChiesa non c'e salvezza.
p.47. Gli errori penetrati nel Concilio.
p.49. Unitatis Redintigratio
p.51. Nostra Aetate 2
2.
Error 1:
Misrepresentation of the dogma, "Outside the Church There Is No Salvation" by Fr.Francois Laisney
The first error of those who take their doctrine from Rev. Fr. Leonard Feeney, commonly known as "Feeneyites," is that they misrepresent the dogma, "Outside the [Catholic] Church there is no salvation." The Feeneyites misrepresent this as, "Without baptism of water there is no salvation." (Without the baptism of water there is no defacto salvation.Without the baptism of water de jure in principle, salvation is a possibility known to God)
St. Cyprian (c.210-258) was the first Catholic saint to use in writing[1] the expression "extra ecclesiam nulla salus," ("Outside the Church there is no salvation"). In the very passage in which he uses this phrase, St. Cyprian also expresses that baptism of water is inferior to baptism of blood. Since baptism of blood, he says, is not fruitful outside the Church, because "outside the Church there is no salvation," baptism of water also cannot be fruitful outside the Church. The reason for this is that it would imprint the character of baptism but would not give sanctifying grace, i.e., justification, which opens the gates of heaven.
In the very next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches, with all the fathers, doctors, popes and unanimously all theologians, that baptism of blood, that is, dying for the Catholic Faith, is the most glorious and perfect baptism of all, explicitly stating "even without the water." In the paragraph following this one, St. Cyprian teaches that Catholic faithful who, through no fault of their own, were received into the Catholic Church without a valid baptism,[2] would still go to heaven. This is to say that they would die with the requisite Catholic faith and charity, necessary to go to heaven, though without the waters of baptism. These requisites are exactly the conditions of "baptism of desire."
(Why is the SSPX priest mentioning the baptism of desire and baptism of blood with reference to Fr.Leonard Feeney? How can something that is not defacto seen ( but accepted hypothetically) be an exception to relevant to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney?)
Why not then believe the dogma "outside the Church there is no salvation" "...with the same sense and the same understanding - in eodem sensu eademque sententia"[3] - as the whole Catholic Church has taught it from the beginning, that is, including the "three baptisms"? Fr. Leonard Feeney and his followers give a new meaning, a new interpretation, to this dogma.
(Since 'from the beginning' the Church has never taught that the baptism of blood and desire are physically visible to us in the present times.Since they are not visible in the present times they cannot be a defacto exception to the traditional interpretation.For the SSPX priest these cases are relevant. So he implies that they exist defacto. If they did not exist defacto they would not be relevant. So indirectly he is saying that these cases are visible for us and they are exceptions to the dogmatic teaching).
This traditional interpretation of this dogma, including the "three baptisms," is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc., (Wrong - none of the persons mentioned here say that the baptism of desire is physically visibile to us) and unanimously all theologians (prior to the modernists). (None of them!) St. Alphonsus says: "It is de fide [that is, it belongs to the Catholic Faith - Ed.] that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit."[4] (He does not imply or say that it is visible to us physically. Since it is an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, it must be physically visible to Fr.Francois Laisney and the SSPX)
The traditional interpretation of "Outside the Church there is no salvation," was approved by the Council of Florence (1438-1445).(It does not mention the baptism of desire as an exception. So it was not saying that these cases are visible to us) The Council Fathers present made theirs the doctrine of St. Thomas on baptism of desire, saying that for children one ought not to wait 40 or 80 days for their instruction, because for them there was "no other remedy."[5] This expression is taken directly from St. Thomas (Summa Theologica, IIIa, Q.68, A. 3) and it refers explicitly to baptism of desire (ST, IIIa, Q.68, A.2). Despite the fact that the Council of Florence espoused the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, it is astonishing to see Feeneyites opposing this council to St. Thomas! (St.Thomas never said that the baptism of desire is visible to us or that it is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is the error of the SSPX )
None of the arguments of the Feeneyites have value against the rock of Tradition. But, to be consistent, let us refute two more of their major errors. (This visible for us baptism of desire is an objective error of the SSPX and not part of Tradition before 1949).
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment