Thursday, January 9, 2014

Pope Francis presents Protestant kerygma contradicts Vatican Council II

The pope gave us an incomplete kerygma? Evangelii Gaudium has the first part of the kerygma only(1).The important part was left out.Jesus Died and is Risen to save us. Yes.But save us from what?(Hell?) Save us where ? ( in the  Catholic Church) and how? (through the Sacraments)? I ask as a Catholic seeking information.
 Jesus saves people in the present times.Not hypothetical cases.He saves them from going to Hell. He saves them only if they accept him in the Catholic Church and live its teaching.This seems the message for me in Vatican Council II (AG 7). The same in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846, Dominus Iesus 20, Ecclesia di Eucharistia etc. We have the traditional kerygma , the complete one in these Church-texts. Pope John Paul II is clear in Dominus Iesus 20. Salvation is available for all. In potential!Salvation through the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.To receive this salvation though (here's the part left out) , the Church is necessary. Every one in the present times needs to be a member of the Catholic Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.
So when Pope Francis says  “Jesus Christ loves you; he gave his life to save you; and now he is living at your side every day to enlighten, strengthen and free you.”, it is not enough. Jesus can also saves all from going to the fires of Hell which burn.
The Catholic kerygma is an appeal to Orthodox Christians, Protestants and others to enter the Church to be saved from Hell (AG 7). Christians do not have Catholic Faith which include the Sacraments  and the moral and faith teachings of the Church. Yet the pope refers to Christians and not Catholics.
 In 'faith and baptism', faith could not just mean believing in Jesus. The Jehovah's Witnesses also believe in Jesus. He is one with St. Michael the Archangel . While Protestants believe in Jesus but die with mortal sins of abortion, divorce etc permitted by their communities.Muslims also believe in Jesus differently.
 When St.Peter  told the jailer that all he needed for salvation was to believe in Jesus it was the  first step. The jailer then needed the baptism of water given in a community. He then needed to learn the faith in that community. He then needed to live that faith for salvation in a community, the Early Church, the Early Catholic Church.The kerygma must say that faith in Jesus is needed in only the Catholic Church, since there is no known known salvation outside the church.
The JWs, Protestants and Muslims do not have this faith.They are oriented to Hell according to Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14). So how can a kerygma exclude the necessity of membership in the Church for salvation?  Cappucino without coffee.
All need to enter  the Church 'as through a door' , 'faith and baptism' for all, in only the Catholic Church is omitted in the kerygma of Pope Francis.
 Protestants believe only faith in Jesus is enough. For them it is necessary to accept Jesus' Death and Resurrection  for salvation. For them it is Jesus without the necessity of the Catholic Church(2).
The root of the kerygma problem for the pope could be the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.Does the pope assume that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are physically visible to us or not physically visible to us?It's simple. If they are visible to us on earth  then Pope Pius XII condemned Fr.Leonard Feeney's 'rigorist interpretation'.If they are not , then the Letter of the Holy Office supported the priest from Boston's interpretation.Pius XII supported him on  doctrine since 'the dogma', 'the infallible teaching' (3), does not mention exceptions known or unknown.
If there are no visible exceptions to all needing to convert into the Church for salvation, then all need to accept Jesus' Death and Resurrection  and be visible members of the Church; they all need to convert and there are no known exceptions.
The kerygma refers only to people in the present times and not hypothetical persons.Outside the Church there is no (known) salvation  and there are no (known) exceptions to Vatican Council II(AG 7).
So if Vatican Council II or the Letter of the Holy Office 1949  mention exceptions it would be an objective mistake.Since there cannot be known exceptions.It would be a factual error if Pope Francis  also assumes there are known exceptions.
Since being saved in imperfect communion with the Church,(UR 3), invincible ignorance(LG 16), good and holy things in other religions(NA 2), elements of sanctification and grace (LG 8) are not known exceptions  to Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation).
These cases are not visible to us and no magisterial text, including Vatican Council II, claim that they are exceptions to the  dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So there can be only one rational interpretation of Vatican Council II on salvation.
Known salvation outside the Church in 2013-2014 is irrational.We know that humans cannot see the dead and neither can we name such cases. So the kerygma cannot refer to them.
 There is no rational basis for the incomplete kerygma which does not mention the necessity for all to convert into the Church to avoid Hell.To build a new theology or new kerygma based on known salvation in the present times is irrational.
The definition of the kerygma which the pope has used would suit the Jehovah's Witnesses.The JW's in Rome distribute pictures of Jesus and quote the New Testament, from their Bible, as interpreted by the founder of their religion. In their sect they claim there is exclusive salvation. Most of their 'evangelisers' here are ex Catholics.
 We do not know any JW who will be saved in invincible ignorance, seeds of the Word, imperfect communion with the Church etc, The JWs do not believe in Hell. So when the pope 's kerygma refers to the saviour , does he mean it in only a worldly sense? The pope does not mention Hell.
Evangelii Gaudium also indicates that there could be new rules for the Eucharist. In Ecclesia  di Eucarestia Pope John Paul II affirmed the ecclesiology of outside the Church there is no salvation. So the Eucharist is not 'open for all'. It is not to be given to those outside the Church and on the way to Hell.Hell is a dogma of the Church.
Aside from Hell, the pope would have to rephrase the kerygma so that it could be in accord also with the Creed.
In the Nicene Creed we pray "I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin" and in the Athanasius Creed we also affirm outside the Church there is no salvation ! The two creeds teach us: everyone needs to receive the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation.
It is heresy to reject the defined dogma, extra ecclesiam nulla salus(with alleged known exception) and to change the Nicene Creed (with allegedly known baptism of desire and blood in 2013-2014).It is a first class heresy in Pope John Paul II's hierarchy of truths.It is a mortal sin.
Could the pope be confused? Since he does not make the defacto-dejure, objective-subjective distinction.For example, a Protestant could be saved in imperfect communion with the Church, seeds of the Word, elements of sanctification and grace etc as a possibility . Only as a possibility known to God and not as an exception to the dogma.Dejure (in principle) yes. De facto, no.
So if a Protestant is saved it is hypothetical for us. It can be accepted only in faith, in theory.It is something abstract.We cannot say that any particular Protestant, known to us, is saved or will be saved, through the Death and Resurrection of Jesus. We do not know any one saved through Jesus and the Church for these cases to be exceptions to Ad Gentes 7.
 Even a pope can be in mortal sin.So Pope Francis goes for Confession. According to Canon Law a priest in public mortal sin is not to offer Holy Mass, without receiving absolution  in the Confessional and removing the public scandal.
Evangelii Gaudium does not state any where that non Catholics and non Christians need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell. This was the traditional doctrinal basis for evangelisation in the Catholic Church.
So we have the rejection of the Nicene and Athanasius Creed, the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which Pope Pius XII called an 'infallible statement'.There is a rejection of  Pope John Paul II's Catechism of the Catholic Church (846), Dominus Iesus (20), Ecclesia di Eucarestia etc.There is a rejection of Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) and Holy Mass is being offered in public with all this confusion ?
-Lionel Andrades 
 
(1)
164. In catechesis too, we have rediscovered the fundamental role of the first announcement or kerygma, which needs to be the centre of all evangelizing activity and all efforts at Church renewal. The kerygma is trinitarian. The fire of the Spirit is given in the form of tongues and leads us to believe in Jesus Christ who, by his death and resurrection, reveals and communicates to us the Father’s infinite mercy. On the lips of the catechist the first proclamation must ring out over and over: “Jesus Christ loves you; he gave his life to save you; and now he is living at your side every day to enlighten, strengthen and free you.”
 http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html

(2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerygma

(3)
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

I was telling her that there are only Catholics in Heaven

On Jan 4(Saturday) I was telling an Italian sister with the community of St.Jeanne Antide that there are only Catholics in Heaven.
There was no time to explain it to her. Those who die with the baptism of desire I mentioned are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. All.
So the person who dies with a genuine desire for the baptism of water, has charity and other conditions for salvation needed before entering Heaven could have 1) a preacher sent to him who baptizes him with water (St.Thomas Aquinas) 2) could be sent back to earth only for the baptism of water (St.Francis Xavier) 3) or could go to Purgatory and return to earth to make expiation , as the saints Padre Pio and others have observed. So all who are in Heaven have received the baptism of water and have Catholic Faith.
When the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257) states that 'God is not limited to the Sacraments', this is how I understand it.With or without the baptism of water, CCC 1257 does not contradict itself when it says that 'the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water' and also states  'God is not limited to the Sacraments'.Neither does CCC 1257 contradict Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.It is when Catholics assume that those saved without the Sacraments  are visible to us, that the confusion begins. De jure, God is not limited to the Sacraments. De facto all need the baptism of water for salvation in 2014.It is given to adults with Catholic Faith. Explicitly, in the present times 'the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water'. Hypothetically  'God is not limited to the Sacraments'.Since one is objective and the other is accepted subjectively it does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
Christ affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism (AG 7, John 3:5 etc). The baptism of desire without the Sacrament of baptism cannot be an exception,since we do not know any such case in the present times.This would have to be a theoretical, in principle, de jure case, accepted in faith.Something abstract.If there was a known case it would contradict Christ's saying all need faith and baptism.
The baptism of desire is a non issue.It is irrelevant to Ad Gentes 7 and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So when it is said that they could not be saved who are not ignorant that the Catholic Church was founded by God , through  Jesus Christ,  (LG 14,CCC 846)  these persons saved are known only to God, as also are those saved with the baptism of desire.
Every one still needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of desire and not just those who 'know'.In other words defacto, practically in 2014 every one needs faith and baptism to go to Heaven.In theory and known only to God those who 'know' and do not enter the Church cannot be saved.While those who have not heard of the Gospel through no fault of theirs can be saved. AG 7 refers to defacto cases. LG 14 refers to hypothetical cases.Real for God but hypothetical for us.
So in Heaven there are only Catholics. Since the only way to go there is with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. Outside the Church there is no known salvation without the baptism of water  and Catholic Faith. Outside the church there is no salvation.
 The confusion increases when the Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to outside the church no salvation (846) as an 'aphorism' and not a dogma.It also does not clarify that the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma nor to Ad Gentes 7.They are irrelevant to the dogma on exclusive salvation  as it was traditionally interpreted over the centuries.
So there can be no new ecclesiology, theology of religions or new salvation theology unless of course, one assumes there is known salvation outside the church.
-Lionel Andrades
 

The box of mangos

If in a box of mangoes there is an  apple , the apple is an exception because it is there. It exists there. If it was not there it would not be an exception.
To be an exception  it has to be visible and known and different.
When it is not visible, known and existing it is not an exception.
I do not know any person; I cannot see anyone in heaven or on earth saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.These cases are not visible to me but are known only to God i.e if there was such  a case .So they cannot be an exception to any thing.
Jesus reaffirmed the necessity of faith and baptism for salvation (Vatican Council II, Ad Gentes 7). I cannot see any exception in 2014.
In theory is is possible to be saved as such, in practise, in real life, there are no such cases.
So when Vatican Council II (LG 14) says those who know that the Church is founded by God , through Jesus Christ but  do not enter will be damned, is this something implicit or explicit for you?
Vatican Council II (LG 16) refers to those who through no fault of their own have not had the Gospel preached to them and who have been leading a good life and so could be saved . Is this subjective or objective for us?
When the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 indicates all who are saved in another religion are saved through Jesus and the Church, do we know of any such case?
Are these cases invisible or visible for you?
When the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 indicates that those who are saved in another religion are saved through Jesus and the Church , do we know of any such case?
Are these cases invisible or visible for you? 
When the Catechism (1257 The Necessity of Baptism) says God is not limited to the Sacraments, is it referring to hypothetical cases or defacto, known- to- us people  in 2014?
Similarly those saved with the seeds of the Word(AG 11), imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3) are explicit for us or explicit only for God?
Would Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits of Boston know the name and surname of an exception to all needing faith and baptism for salvation?
Was there a known case to refute Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston?
Could those saved through the 'good and holy' things in their religion (NA 2) be relevant or an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
Could any reader of this blog give me an example of an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, mentioned in Vatican Council II ?
-Lionel Andrades