Monday, December 22, 2014

If a pope uses the irrational premise and comes to an irrational conclusion it still is an objective error, even if he is the pope.

I have received an e-mail from an apologist.
 
You need to be more specific about what you are saying and also define your terms. What premise, what conclusion, what theology, what Tradition. Be very specific about what you are saying. Your point, if there is one, isnt' comprehensible.
Lionel:
Thank you for mentioning it.
what premise ?
The irrational premise is "The dead are visible to us on earth".
what conclusion ?
The conclusion is since the dead are visible to us on earth those who are saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are explicit ( visible in the flesh) exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
what theology,
So the post -1949 theology says every one needs to enter the Catholic Church except for those in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire.
Defacto there are known exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.
what Tradition.
Pre- 1949 Catholic Tradition, on salvation ( soteriology) says there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. The three dogmas on extra ecclesiam nulla salus ,defined by three Church Councils do not mention any exception. The text also does not mention the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance.I am referring to Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441.
Also Mystici Corporis and the Council of Trent mention implicit desire etc but do not state that these cases are known to us, to be exceptions to the dogma .Neither do they state that there are exceptions to the dogma.
Yet with the false premise and false conclusion this is how the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc are interpreted.
If a pope uses the irrational premise and comes to an irrational conclusion it still is an objective error, even if he is the pope. It is a fact of life that we cannot see persons in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire. We do not know any one this year saved without the batism of water. So so how can these cases be postulated as exceptions?
-Lionel Andrades

Don Leonardo Maria Pompei follows the Ratzingerian mistake

 
Don Leonardo Maria Pompei an Italian priest on this video makes the familiar error. He assumes that Pope Pius XII was correct and Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong and so there are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For him the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma, in other words, they are known and visible. They are for him defacto exceptions to the dogma.
With this reasoning he comes to Lumen Gentium, Vatican Council II and once again supposes there are references to objective exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
The same reasoning has been used by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Dominus Iesus, Ut Unum Sint etc. He mistakes invisible for us cases now in Heaven as being visible to us. Upon this irrationality he has created a new theology in the Catholic Church which rejects the traditional theology on salvation and our understanding of Church.
So for his priest there are known exceptions to the dogma even though we do not know of any case in real life and no magisterial documents before 1949 makes this claim. Not even the Council of Trent or Mystici Corporis uses this irrationality.
-Lionel Andrades
 

Since they assumed that Pope Pius XII was correct and Fr.Leonard Feeney wrong Cardinal Ratzinger used an irrational inference in magisterial documents

Since they assumed that Pope Pius XII was correct and Fr.Leonard Feeney wrong Cardinal Ratzinger used an irrational inference in magisterial documents.

Since they have assumed that Pope Pius XII was correct and Fr.Leonard Feeney wrong the Franciscans of the Immaculate and the SSPX have to interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational inference.
Basically they are asking all of us Catholics to accept that there is visible salvation outside the Church and so Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong. 



They want you as a Catholic to accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 with an irrational inference and then interpret Vatican Council II also with that same irrational premise.

  • Letter of the Holy Office '49 with the irrational inference is rejected : Vatican Council II without the false premise is accepted

-Lionel Andrades
 
__________________________________________
 
 
No one denies that the pope has made a Cushingite error
 


Pope John Paul II made a doctrinal error

Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney, unless, you use Cushingism in the interpretation

Musings of a Pertinacious Papist
 
_______________________________
 
From Musings of a Pertinacious Papist, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus What does it mean?
Tradical
I quickly checked the references that Catholicism made and noted that there appears to be a confirmation bias at work.
Lionel:
Usually the common bias with the SSPX and the St.Benedict Centers, is asuming hypothetical cases are defacto exceptions to the dogma.
This was the original error of the Holy Office and Cardinal Cushing. They inferred that the baptism of desire was known and visible in personal cases to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. In other words they could see the dead on earth.

_________________________________

...But this is all rather unnecessary.

The question appears to be simply: Can an unbaptized person achieve salvation?
Lionel:
Please be aware that this is a hypothetical question. So do not asume it refers to a defacto case and posit is against the dogma.

______________________________________

Well we know from the Council of Trent that a desire of baptism is also sufficient.

Lionel:
Again the Council of Trent only referred to implicit desire/baptism of desire. It did not state that these cases are known and visible to us, defacto, or that they are exceptions to the dogma. So please do not make this inference and then suggest that the Council of Trent say this.

_____________________________________

So fundamentally, someone who is not sacramentally baptised can achieve a state of grace and if this is maintained until death, they will be saved.

Lionel:
O.K. Hypothetically.
_____________________________________

Now, as to the matter of faith, taking up the thread above - St. Thomas makes distinctions between what degree of knowledge or 'content of Faith' is required for various classes of people.
For example a Bishop must have a higher content than a Priest, who must have a higher degree of explicit Faith than a lay-person. There are lesser requirements for the unbaptized.

Lionel:
Fine. But please do not infer, though, that these cases are personally known to us.
And if they are not personally known to us how can they be relevant to the dogma?

__________________________________

So at the extreme end, the minimum requirement for belief is as stated in the letter to Archbishop Cushing, which has basically been repeated in the Second Vatican Council.
Lionel:
Cushingism assumes that hypothetical cases are defacto exceptions to the dogma.

______________________________

 In this case, since it is not at variance with how the Church has understood the dogma pre-conciliarly and even conciliarly, it is (imo) somewhat pointless to argue the point.
Lionel:
Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney, unless, you are using Cushingism in the interpretation. Most people, liberals and traditionalists, are doing just this.
-Lionel Andrades


https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6312447&postID=3181870308829741462

Baptism of desire and blood are irrelevant to the 'rigorist interpretation' of Fr.Leonard Feeney

Musings of a Pertinacious Papist
 
From Musings of a Pertinacious Papist, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus What does it mean?
 
When Holy Mother Church definitively teaches this, she is (as Abp Lefebvre claimed) that since the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church established by Christ to be the instrument of salvation, anyone who is saved is saved through the Church,
Lionel:
Agreed.

 and further that "membership" in the Church isn't sufficient for salvation,
Lionel:
It is here where I must part ways with the good Archbishop.



For Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to change the traditional interpretation of the dogma is heretical.To teach a new doctrine is not traditional
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/october-24-2014-lionel-barbaralook-at.html


Would you say that was also an oversight of Archbishop Lefebvre ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/would-you-say-that-was-also-oversight.html#links


Archbishop Lefebvre on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus according to Mundabor- he made a mistake
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/archbishop-lefebvre-on-extra-ecclesiam.html#links


If Louie Verrecchio answers the two questions frankly he would be at odds with the SSPX http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/if-louie-verrecchio-answers-two.html


So there are two lines of thought within the SSPX. One of them is wrong.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/so-there-are-two-lines-of-thought.html


The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) and the Vatican Curia's doctrinal position has become their political stand : talks could collapse again because of egoism

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/the-society-of-stpius-x-sspx-and.html


Muller-Fellay doctrinal deadlock : stuck on the ' visible dead ' issue
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/muller-fellay-doctrinal-deadlock-stuck.html

SSPX is still part of the problem : communique on the Beatification of Pope Paul VI
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/sspx-is-still-part-of-problem.html

Maria Guarini, Father Stefano of Radio Vobiscum also like Padre Serafino Lanzetta FFI make the same mistake on Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/maria-guarini-father-stefano-of-radio.html


The SSPX must accept Vatican Council II, lock, stock and barrel, without the irrational inference. This has the hermeneutic of continuity with the past. This Vatican Council II is traditional
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/the-sspx-must-accept-vatican-council-ii.html


Vatican Council II affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus for me
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/vatican-council-ii-affirms-extra.html

_____________________________________


 but Baptism (in one of three ways) is necessary.

Lionel:
Yes a person could be saved with the baptism of water, desire and blood but defacto there are no known cases of the baptism of desire and blood. We can only physically  see and physically administer the baptism of water. It is the only known baptism.If someone would be saved without the baptism of water it would only be known to God.
So the baptism of desire and blood are not defacto exceptions to the traditional teaching on all needing to be formal members of the Church. They are irrelevant to the 'rigorist interpretation' of Fr.Leonard Feeney. 
-Lionel Andrades
 

Based on an irrationality you have created a theology

Anonymous

Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M. :
There could not be a more accurate title to your posting, Mr. Andrades.

Mr. Tofari probably has as little time as have I to entertain your non-theological musings about the invisible dead.

My line of questioning accomplished what I set out to do: namely, to establish that you are not operating from sound principles, but, rather, from some kind of empiricism as the basis of your speculations.
 
There could not be a more accurate title to your posting, Mr. Andrades.

Mr. Tofari probably has as little time as have I to entertain your non-theological musings about the invisible dead.
Lionel:
Brother Andre Marie it about two year now since I have been asking you fundamental questions about the Catholic Faith. It is not just overnight in this report.
__________________________

My line of questioning accomplished what I set out to do: namely, to establish that you are not operating from sound principles, but, rather, from some kind of empiricism as the basis of your speculations.
Lionel:
I repeat: when I say that I cannot see the dead on earth or we humans in general cannot see the dead I am not going to create a theology or philosophy which says exactly that.

You have done this.

For you Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney.
So you are inferring that those who have died in invincible ignorance, are exceptions, to the dogma this year. They are known to you.So Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma. This is your theological principle based on your alleged ability to see the dead who are exceptions.
Based on an irrationality you have created a theology.
I refuse to do this.
-Lionel Andrades
 

Ireland Pro-Life Group Criticizes Health Minister Leo Varadkar for Pro-Abortion Comments

by Cora Sherlock | Dublin, Ireland | LifeNews.com |

In the Dáil yesterday evening Health Minister Leo Varadkar said that the Eighth Amendment to the Constitutional dealing with abortion is too “restrictive” and is having a “chilling” effect on doctors. He was commenting during a private members’ bill tabled by Clare Daly TD, which seeks to remove all remaining constitutional protection for the unborn.
leovaradkarResponding to Minister Varadkar’s remarks, Dr Ruth Cullen of the Pro Life Campaign said: “Minister Varadkar is part of a government that introduced abortion up to birth based on a threat of suicide. He knows there is not a shred of medical evidence to back it up and that if anything the evidence points to the adverse mental health consequences of abortion for women in these situations.
“There is nothing in the new legislation to prevent two psychiatrists who view abortion as harmless from signing off on abortions, secure in the knowledge that they don’t have to meet any evidence-based test. Contrary to what Minister Varadkar now claims, there is absolutely nothing restrictive about such a law in practice.
 
“What is truly chilling about the current abortion debate is the way the unborn child throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy has been totally written out of the discussion. There is nothing humane, liberal or compassionate about empty talk of protecting and respecting the unborn while bowing to the demands of those who want all remaining protection for the unborn child stripped out of our laws, which would be the effect of repealing the Eighth Amendment.”