Wednesday, June 11, 2014

No ambiguity in Nostra Aetate - all salvation referred to in Vatican Council II is known and visible only to God

“In many places, (the Council Fathers) had to find compromise formulas, in which, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction.” – Cardinal Walter Kasper, L’Osservatore Romano, April 12 2013
Lionel:
There is only compromise when the distinction between in fact and in theory are blurred.
 
Cardinal Kaspar has done just this and so the Council emerges as ‘ambigous’.
There is no ambiguity in Nostra Aetate , Unitatis Redintigratio etc if one is clear that all salvation referred to in Vatican Council II is known and visible only to God. So these references are not relevant to or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors etc.-Lionel Andrades
 

If ' a ray of the Truth' (NA 2) is considered visible or invisible decides heresy

If ‘ a ray of the Truth’ (NA 2) is considered visible in the flesh to us then it contradicts the thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is heresy.
If ' a ray of the Truth' is considered not visible to us human beings then it is not relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It refers to a possibility of salvation, only known to God. It is a probability but not an exception.
Similarly if being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) is considered explicit for us , then it means there is salvation outside the Catholic Church. It means every one does not have to be a visible member of the Church for salvation. This is heresy.
It is invisible for us. Rationally we know NA 2  is not in conflict with the de fide dogma.-Lionel Andrades
http://catholictruthblog.com/2014/05/29/accept-vatican-ii-or-else/

The fault is with your not making the explicit-implicit distinction

You are bewildered since you are using a false premise in the interpretation of the documents of Vatican Council II.
Leo:
When I read the documents relative to the Modernism, as it was defined by Saint Pius X, and when I compare them to the documents of the II Vatican Council, I cannot help being bewildered. For what was condemned as heresy in 1906 was proclaimed as what is and should be from now on the doctrine and method of the Church.
Lionel:
You are bewildered since you are using a false premise in the interpretation of the documents of Vatican Council II.The invisible is considered visible.
For example you infer that Nostra Aetate 2, 'a ray of the Truth' refers to cases which are explicit for us. So now every one does not need to convert into the Catholic Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.So this is a major change in Church teaching.
Then you read about those who can be saved ‘ in imperfect communion with the Church’ (UR 3) and you conclude that Protestants do not need Catholic Faith for salvation.This is a big change in ecumenism.
The fault is with your not making the explicit-implicit distinction.Yes a Protestant could be saved 'in imperfect communion with the Church' , hypothetically, in theory, but in reality we do not know of any such case. So there is no contradiction with the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Church.
Similarly we do not know any one saved with ‘seeds of the Word’ etc.

Vatican Council II and the Catechism are not in conflict : since there is no salvation outside the visible limits of the Church

It would seem then that indirect acceptance of the Council is a requirement for reception into the Ordinariate. The CCC is of course the principle compendium of the concilliar documents’ teachings.
 
Lionel:
Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)  are not in conflict as long as one is aware that there is no salvation outside the visible limits of the Church. So all salvation mentioned in these two documents, must be considered invisible and not visible for us. This is also rational.
-Lionel Andrades

They want the Franciscans of the Immaculate and the Ordinariate to accept Nostra Aetate ‘ a ray of the Truth’ as being visible for us

The Novus Ordo is of course concilliar.
 
Lionel:
The issue is Vatican Council II and not the Novus Ordo Mass. The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate would offer the Novus Ordo Mass and the Tridentine Latin Mass.

They want the Franciscans of the Immaculate and the Ordinariate to accept Vatican Council II in which Nostra Aetate ‘ a ray of the Truth’ is allegedly visible to us and so is an exception to all Tradition. It is saying, for the first time in the history of the Catholic Church ,that there is salvation outside the Church and all do not need to convert with ‘faith and baptism’.-Lionel Andrades

Basically , they are asking you, to accept that there is salvation outside the visible limits of the Church

"...so what is it they want us to accept when they demand that we “accept the Council?”
Lionel:
They want you to accept a Vatican Council II using an irrational inference in the interpretation.
Linked to this, they want you to accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 with the irrational inference. They want you to infer that  the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible in the flesh.So they are  exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Using this irrational reasoning, they want you to accept that Nostra Aetate 2, ‘ a ray of the truth’ refers to explicit cases seen in the flesh.The dead are visible. These deceased, they want you to accept, are exceptions to the dogmatic teaching on all needing to enter the Church with no exceptions.
If you accept all this then Vatican Council II becomes a break with the past.Basically , they are asking you, and you may have not noticed it, is to accept that there is salvation outside the visible limits of the Church.It is upon this irrational inference that the ‘ new Revelation’ from Vatican Council II comes to us.
Remove the inference and you can accept Vatican Council II and Tradition.
-Lionel Andrades
 
SUMMARY
1.They want you to accept a Vatican Council II using an irrational inference in the interpretation.
2.They want you to accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 with the irrational inference.
 
3.They want you to accept that Nostra Aetate 2, ‘ a ray of the truth’ refers to explicit cases seen in the flesh.
 
4.These deceased, they want you to accept, are exceptions to the dogmatic teaching on all needing to enter the Church with no exceptions.
5.They want you to accept that there is salvation outside the visible limits of the Church.It is upon this irrational inference that the ‘ new Revelation’ from Vatican Council II comes to us.


 

Only when we do not use the inference Vatican Council is traditional

I’m afraid that we have an unfortunate state of affairs whereby one does have to, outwardly at least, in the Novus Ordo Church, obey the Second Vatican Council unconditionally.
Lionel:
There is a Vatican Council with an irrational premise used in the interpretation and there is one without it.
There is a Vatican Council II with a false premise which makes the Council ambigous and there is one without the premise and ambiguity.
 
There is a Vatican Council II which is in perfect agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and there is a Vatican Council II ( with the inference) which is a break with Tradition and the dogma on exclusive salvation.
Your PP was using one of the two interpretations.
When we speak about Vatican Council II ( without the inference of explicit exceptions) then the Council affirms Tradition.
Only if we do not use the inference is the Council traditional.
-Lionel Andrades

If the 'magisterium' of 1949 inferred Catholics could see the dead it was an objective error


Catholic Truth, Scotland.
A Warning Folks…
Please note that Lionel Andrades has a bee in his bonnet about the SSPX and baptism of desire. He is supporting Feeneyism, despite its condemnation by the Holy Office in 1949.
Lionel :
Feeneyism's condemnation by the Holy Office ?
Vatican Council II (AG 7) says all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation, this is condemned? The thrice defined dogma says all need to convert into the Church to avoid the fires of Hell, is this condemned too ?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church under the title Outside the Church No Salvation cites Ad Gentes 7. This is condemned too.Dominus Iesus 20 of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI also stand condemned with the same message ?
And is the Holy Office saying there are visible exceptions to Feeneyism and these exceptions are known to all of us in 2014? This irrationality is not condemned?
When Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre infers that the baptism of desire is an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, because the Holy Office says so, then this has to be accepted even though no Church document or pope earlier,has made this claim ?. Archbishop Lefebvre could see the deceased who were exceptions to this de fide teaching of the Church Councils and expressed by saints ?.
So we have to accept that those saved with 'a ray of the Truth' (Nostra Aetate 2,Vatican Council II) are visible to us in 2014, since Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Bernard Fellay and the Holy Office infer that we can see these cases in real life?
Catholic Truth, Scotland.
He does not understand either the teaching of the Church about baptism of desire nor the meaning of the Catholic Dogma “Outside of the Church, there is no salvation”. He is no theologian to say the least. So I would not pay any attention to his flights of fancy.
Here are a few links about the errors of Feeneyism on the SSPX US District Website that you may find interesting:
Lionel:
In the above link Fr.Francois Laisney cites the saints who mention the baptism of desire.He then gos on to assume that the baptism of desire is visible in the flesh for us.Once he infers that they are visible physically he infers that they are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma outside the Church no salvation. None of the saints whom he has quoted has stated that the baptism of desire is explicit for us.None of them have said  that we can see these people now in Heaven as also being on earth.


Fr.Francois Laisney says: with comments
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.,...
(True and where do they state that the baptism of desire is visible to us in daily life ?. The baptism of water is visible.It can also be repeated.Where do these saints state that the baptism of desire is an exception to the interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? And where in the text of the thrice defined dogma, is there mention of the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance ? No where.)
and unanimously all theologians (prior to the modernists). 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]
The traditional interpretation of "Outside the Church there is no salvation," was approved by the Council of Florence (1438-1445). 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!
Lionel:
The Catholic communities, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary accept the baptism of desire. However for them it leads to justification and it must be followed by the baptism of water.So this should be clarified by the SSPX website.
I(Lionel) accept the baptism of desire as being implicit for us and explicit only for God.It is invisible for me, and also for all SSPX members.So it is not relevant to the teaching which says all need to be visible members of the Church. All need to convert into the Church in 2014 and we do not know of a single exception; we do not know of a  single case of the baptism of desire.
So I accept the baptism of desire as being implicit for us. I reject an explict for us baptism of desire.
Fr.Francois Laisney assumes that the baptism of desire is explicit for us ( and so an exception to the dogma), this is irrational and heretical.
 
Many of our friends have heard of Fr. Leonard Feeney... to make his point, Fr. Feeney went so far as to exclude Baptism of desire (and martyrdom) from the means of salvation.
 Lionel:
The issue is : is the baptism of desire an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? Can we see any such exception, do we know of any one who will be saved or is saved this year without 'faith and baptism'? This is important for me.The SSPX and the communities or Fr.Leonard Feeney have to deal with this issue. Since even if the baptism of desire results in justification only or justification and salvation, it is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is not an exception to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.So the debate above is meaningless.
However, it is entirely unacceptable for a Catholic to willingly and knowingly deny the Church’s explicit teaching on the question of baptism of blood and desire. For it is not because these questions are not formally defined that they are optional extras that a person can take or leave.
Lionel:
I make the distinction between explicit for us baptism of desire and implicit for us baptism of desire.I do not deny the baptism of desire (implicit) while I reject an explicit visible for us baptism of desire.This is not theology. I am referring to a physical phenomenon.I am reasoning intellectually, philosophically and not as theology.Once you decide intellectually if the baptism of desire case can be seen on earth with the naked eye, then you build your theology, traditional or heretical.
Fr.Peter Scott, the former District Superior of the SSPX(USA) here assumes that the baptism of desire is physically explicit for us. So for him the baptism of desire is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This is irrational. How can we see the dead who are saved with the baptism of desire.How can it be visible to us on earth? This is the eror of Archbiship Lefebvre.
There are three baptisms ( or more) in principle, hypothetically, but in reality, defacto there can only be one baptism, the baptism of water.The baptism of desire cannot be administered or seen.
 
 
Lionel:
Fr.Joseph Pfeiffer in this link,  also like Fr.Francois Laisney, assumes that the baptism of desire is visible for us , it is objective, it is not hypothetical.
If the cardinal who issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 also assumed all this, then he made a factual mistake. Objectively, we cannot see the dead.He assumed the dead were visible on earth.
No Church document prior to 1949 makes this fantastic claim and then builds an irrational theology upon it.
 
If the 'magisterium' of 1949 infered that we Catholics can see the dead then this was an objective error. The dead man walking theory is not rational.
Also when Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops continued to make this mistake they were not corrected by any of the popes or Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. The 'magisterium' made a mistake here.
I respect the Magisterium and follow it, however this would be an objective error independent of theology or doctrine.
-Lionel Andrades

The 'missing link' discovered : what makes Vatican Council II traditional or heretical

The missing link is the irrational inference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
 
Get rid of the inference and as in a snap of the finger the Council becomes traditional, as it always was.
 
Hands up anyone who is surprised that Saint Pius X was hardly quoted at all in at the Second Vatican Council. He was the least quoted of the twentieth century Popes. There was no reference to Pascendi. And there was no mention of Modernism in a papal encyclical between Ecclesiam Suam in 1964 and Fides et Ratio in 1998.
Can we have a spokesman from the Department of the Hermeneutic of Continuity, please?
Lionel:
There is no contradiction with Pascendi in Vatican Council II unless you assume that the dead saved- and now referred to in Vatican Council II, are explicit for us.If you use this irrationality, Vatican Council II will contradict Pascendi.
Without the irrational inference, Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of continuity. With the false premise of being able to see the dead-saved, it is the hermeneutic of rupture.
We have finally found the ‘missing link’ for either of the two heremeneutics.It is so simple.

Meriam Ibrahim’s Brother-in-Law: Brutal Pre-Execution Flogging Will “Take Her Skin Off”

by Anne Garboczi Evans | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 6/10/14 

Meriam Ibrahim is a twenty-seven year old Sudanese doctor. Her husband, Daniel Wani, is an American citizen and New Hampshire resident. Imprisoned since February with their one-year-old boy and unborn baby, Meriam spent her pregnancy shackled in a one-room cell.
sudan4Last month, Sudan sentenced her to death because she’s a Christian. They’ve also mandated 100 lashes for sexual relations with her husband. Since her husband is a Christian, Sudan doesn’t recognize the marriage and won’t let the children leave the jail to be with him.
Gabriel Wani, brother of Daniel Wani, explained what 100 lashes mean. A strong man with a whip doles out the punishment. Male prisoners are stripped before the whipping. Female prisoners start off with clothing, but the brutal lash soon tears them apart, leaving the woman bare-backed as the whip “takes skin” off. After a hundred lashes some die, while others hover “in bad condition” until they are executed.
Daniel and Meriam’s first meeting reads like an episode from GSN’s new reality dating show, “It Takes a Church.” Meriam attended church with Gabriel’s sister in Sudan. In 2011, a church member heard that Meriam needed a place to live and called up Gabriel’s sister. Meriam moved into her house and when Daniel traveled to Sudan to visit his sister in 2011, Meriam and he immediately became friends. Gabriel tells of many Skype calls and emails in the following months as his brother corresponded with Meriam from New Hampshire. The wedding was a church affair attended by the congregation that brought Daniel and Meriam together.
The couple’s children, eighteen-month-old Martin and newborn Maya, are U.S. citizens. Yet, the U.S. State Department has so far refused to recognize their citizenship.
Martin’s confined to one room where his mother is shackled and caring for a newborn alone. He’s very aware of the prison environment and Daniel Wani described how, in the last four months, his son has gone from a cheerful little boy to a kid that can’t even smile. Gabriel Wani sent Martin clothes and toys through an organization. With affection in his voice, Gabriel described how little Martin loves phones and any other electronics he can find. So Gabriel sent his little nephew a Tablet to help make the prison days go more quickly.
When asked what Americans can do to help his sister-in-law, nephew, and niece, Gabriel Wani asked that they contact their representatives and ask them to urge President Obama to call the Sudanese president. If President Obama makes the phone call and tells the Sudanese president that Sudan needs to respect freedom of religion, Gabriel believes that could make all the difference for Meriam, Martin, and Maya.
http://www.lifenews.com/2014/06/10/meriam-ibrahims-brother-in-law-brutal-pre-execution-flogging-will-take-her-skin-off/

If I Was in a Sudanese Jail, Would You Let Me Rot Too Mr. President?
http://www.lifenews.com/2014/06/09/if-i-was-in-a-sudanese-jail-would-you-let-me-rot-too-mr-president/