Saturday, March 7, 2015

Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Mass

Vatican Council II supports the SSPX General Statement 2012 and Cardinal Raymond Burke does not know this or does not want to comment on it.Instead the Vatican Curia wants the SSPX to sign a doctrinal statement and accept Vatican Council II as a break with the General Chapter Statement on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the strict interpretation. Cardinal Muller and Archbishop di Noia in an interview with Edward Pentin for the National Catholic Register have rejected the strict interpretation of the dogma.Cardinal Raymond Burke has been  silent on this doctrinal issue.Since he too like the Vatican Curia , uses the Marchetti reasoning , to interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.This is heresy with which he offers the Traditional Latin Mass.He is changing Church doctrine with an irrational premise and conclusion. 
    
Cardinal Burke needs to announce that he will accept Vatican Council II ( without the premise).He presently  accepts Vatican Council II interpreted with the irrational premise.
Vatican Council II (without the false premise) would then be in agreement with the SSPX General Chapter Statement on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
It would also mean that he acknowledges that Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani made an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
He needs to announce the obvious.It must be clarified that according to reason and Tradition, we know there are no non Catholics in Heaven , without faith and baptism, who are also physically visible on earth.In 2015 we do not know any one in Heaven who is there without the baptism of water. So we cannot say that there is salvation outside the Church.Cardinal Marchetti did not know of any such case in 1949.
Vatican Council II and all magisterial documents can be affirmed keeping in mind that we human beings cannot see any deceased now in Heaven, who are there without 'faith and baptism'( Ad Gentes 7). So these persons/ cases are not living exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma on salvation.They would have to be known to be explicit exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma.If someone died centuries back with the baptism of blood ( martryrdom) and allegedly without the baptism of water, he or she cannot be an 'exception' in 2015 to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
So when Cardinal Gerhard Muller and Archbishop Di Noia cite Lumen Gentium 16 (  invincible ignorance) and Lumen Gentium 8 ( elements of sanctification and truth) as exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma, they are wrong.It's a fact of life that we cannot know these 'exceptions'. An exception must exist to be an exception.
Presently for Cardinal Burke there are 'exceptions' since he has approved Fr.John Hardon's article on outside the Church there is no salvation.For Fr.Hardon there were exceptions.Cardinal Burke  has also not corrected the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 ( The Necessity of Baptism) which states that God is not limited to the Sacraments.The text of the dogma defined by three Church Councils tell us, God has chosen to limit salvation to the Sacraments.
 
Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus indicate that the magisterium has accepted that there are exceptions to the dogma. In other words salvation in Heaven without the baptism of water, is physically known and visible on earth to become an 'exception'.Hypothetical possibilities, known only to God,were exceptions to the dogma for Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
So they excommunicated Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the four SSPX bishops, who were protesting, against a Vatican Council II with 'exceptions' to Tradition.
If Cardinal Burke affirms that we humans cannot know of any 'exceptions' then the SSPX can accept Vatican Council II ( without the false premise).Vatican Council II would be  in accord with the General Chapter Statement. The Vatican Curia would also have to acknowledge that their interpretation of Vatican Council II ( with the false premise) is heretical, irrational and with the hermeneutic of rupture.The error is there in two theological papers of the International  Theological Commission and the Balamand Declaration.
Cardinal Muller has to be shown that there is a Vatican Council II compatible with traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus and that we reject his present irrational version of the Council.The fundamental issue is : are there any visible exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus mentioned in Vatican Council II?
I would like to clarify that I accept Vatican Council II. I accept all the documents of Vatican Council II.However I do not interpret them with the false premise and conclusion.
So the Council is in accord , for me, with the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, according to the Church Councils, popes, saints and Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center of his time.
I also value the parts of Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus which are in agreement with the dogma.
Presently the Traditional Latin Mass is being offered with an impediment.The error could be something overlooked in innocence.
-Lionel Andrades
 
 
For Cardinal Raymond Burke these hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
 





VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/vatican-council-ii-says.html
 

Archbishop Thomas Gullickson, John Martigioni and Fr.Rev. Fr.P. Stefano Visintin OSB, Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Pontifical University St.Anselm agree with me : there are no visible exceptions

 
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/archbishop-thomas-egullickson-says.html#links


____________________

Catholic Religious indicate the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake :implicit desire etc is not visible to us
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/catholic-religious-indicate-letter-of.html#links

__________________________

Catholic religious contradict Bishop Fellay : Nostra Aetate is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/catholic-religious-contradict-bishop.html#links
 
_____________________________________


DEAN OF THEOLOGY AT ST. ANSELM SAYS THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/10/dean-of-theology-at-st-anselm-says.html
 
______________________________
CATHOLIC PRIESTS IN ROME AGREE WITH FR.LEONARD FEENEY: THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OF
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/08/catholic-priests-in-rome-agree-with.html#links

____________________




How can zero cases of something be considered exceptions ?- John Martigioni
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/sspx-only-way-out-now.html#links

________________________

Implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martigioni
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/implicit-intention-invincible-ignorance.html#links
 

 http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t1278-cardinal-raymond-burke-interprets-church-documents-with-an-irrational-premise-and-conclusion-and-offers-the-traditional-latin-mass#9775
 

 

16 comments:

David Brainerd said...

"Vatican Council II (without the false premise) would then be in agreement with the SSPX General Chapter Statement on extra ecclesiam nulla salus."

Huh? I thought SSPX rejected Vatican II...or am I thinking of some other SSPx group?

Its also unclear who you are quoting when, or when you are speaking as yourself in this article. For instance in bold "I would like to clarify that I accept Vatican Council II...." Who is speaking there?

And what is the point? This article is written so haphazardly I can't figure out what you're trying to say. And I think its safe to say that you have made many errors with respect to reporting the facts.

David Brainerd said...

You also never actually defined what you are referring to as "the false premise."

David Brainerd said...

Again, you need to clarify this confusion, because you say the SSPX General Statement 2012 supports Vatican II. But I looked up the said statement here and it says:

"The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors, and also in regard to the reforms issued from it. We find our sure guide in this uninterrupted Magisterium which, by its teaching authority, transmits the revealed Deposit of Faith in perfect harmony with the truths that the entire Church has professed, always and everywhere."

So perhaps you're interpreting the SSPX General Statement 2012 with an "irrational premise"? No, there's no perhaps about it; you are. So I'm still trying to figure what it is you intend to say.

Catholic Mission said...

David:
Vatican Council II (without the false premise) would then be in agreement with the SSPX General Chapter Statement on extra ecclesiam nulla salus."

Huh? I thought SSPX rejected Vatican II...or am I thinking of some other SSPx group?

Lionel:
The SSPX interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise. So the Council is a break with the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Council is a break with also the General Chapter Statement 2012 which affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma.

Vatican Council II interpreted without the false premise would make the Council Feeneyite. It would affirm the stict interpretation of the dogma according to the Church Councils, popes and saints.
_________________

Its also unclear who you are quoting when, or when you are speaking as yourself in this article. For instance in bold "I would like to clarify that I accept Vatican Council II...." Who is speaking there?

Lionel.
I am referring to myself.
I interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise.
_________________________

And what is the point?
Lionel:
The point is that we can interpret Vatican Council II with or without the premise.The result is traditional or non traditional.
There is a choice. There is an option for example before the SSPX etc.
___________________________


This article is written so haphazardly I can't figure out what you're trying to say.
Lionel:
I usually am writing in a hurry. And I certainly was yesterday as I needed to get to church in time.
________________________

And I think its safe to say that you have made many errors with respect to reporting the facts.
Lionel:
I don't think so.What I have said could be new for you as it is for many others.
_________________________

Catholic Mission said...



David:
You also never actually defined what you are referring to as "the false premise."

Lionel:
The false premise is reasoning and inferring that persons now in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire or blood or in invincible ignorance ( and without the baptism of water) are personally known to us in the present times, 2015.

It is to infer that the dead now saved in Heaven are physically visible and known to us in the present times.

This is the false premise.


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.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/if-pope-uses-irrational-premise-and.html


Fr.Robert Barron in Catholicism uses an irrational proposition to reach an irrational conclusion
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/frrobert-barron-in-catholicism-uses.html

Catholic Mission said...

David:
Again, you need to clarify this confusion, because you say the SSPX General Statement 2012 supports Vatican II. But I looked up the said statement here and it says:

"The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium
Lionel:
By the constant Magisterium they mean the Magisterium before 1949 which did not use the false premise.
Cardinals Marchetti and Cushing brought the irrational premise into the Church and this was accepted by the post 1949 magisterium.
_______________________

of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors, and also in regard to the reforms issued from it.
Lionel:
Marchetti's inference rejected the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It was also a rejection of the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius X on salvation.
Without the strict interpretation of the dogma we lost the basis for affirming the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political systems.
It also changes the traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism, with extra ecclesiam nulla salus out of the way.
__________________

We find our sure guide in this uninterrupted Magisterium
Lionel:
They mean the Magisterium before 1949 which has been 'interruppted' with Marchettis irrationality, his being able to see the dead-saved who were in 1949 'explicit' exceptions to the the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
________________________


which, by its teaching authority, transmits the revealed Deposit of Faith in perfect harmony with the truths that the entire Church has professed, always and everywhere."
Lionel:
Yes the magisterium without the Marchetti Inference, the false inference.
_____________________

So perhaps you're interpreting the SSPX General Statement 2012 with an "irrational premise"?
Lionel:
I am referring to the SSPX General Chapter Statement's reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus without exceptions.The text mentions it.
Someone or many at that General Chapter Statement understood what was the real basis for all the confusion in the Catholic Church.
_________________________

No, there's no perhaps about it; you are. So I'm still trying to figure what it is you intend to say.
Lionel:
I hope what I said above is helpful.
Basically I am saying that Vatican Council II supports the SSPX traditional position on other religions and Christian communities.
Vatican Council II also contradicts the Vatican Curia's interpretation of the dogma on salvation.
Vatican Council II can only be interpreted rationally. The Vatican Curia is interpreting the Council irrationality,i.e with an irrational premise.

________________________

David Brainerd said...

"The false premise is reasoning and inferring that persons now in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire or blood or in invincible ignorance ( and without the baptism of water) are personally known to us in the present times, 2015. It is to infer that the dead now saved in Heaven are physically visible and known to us in the present times."

In other words you reject the idea of canonizing saints.

David Brainerd said...

While I await your answer on if you reject canonization of saints I have another question: What about Francis' first document Gaudium et spes or whatever it was called (no, it was called Evangelii Gaudium, whereas Gaudium et spes is more directly connected to the council)....do you think that one can be saved also? Is that one perfectly Ok if interpreted without the "irrational premise" of canonization of saints? (Since that's my understanding presently of what you mean by the "irrational premise".) Furthermore, can all of Francis' airplane comments be saved if you drop the "irrational premise"?

Catholic Mission said...

David:

"The false premise is reasoning and inferring that persons now in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire or blood or in invincible ignorance ( and without the baptism of water) are personally known to us in the present times, 2015. It is to infer that the dead now saved in Heaven are physically visible and known to us in the present times."

In other words you reject the idea of canonizing saints.

Lionel:
The false premise is not connected to our belief in the canonisation of saints.

The false premise refers to a way of reasoning, an irrational one. It is usually used to show that there are exceptions to all needing faith and baptism for salvation in the present times. It usually infers, wrongly, that all do not need the baptism of water.
Since it is assumed that we can personally know persons saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire, it is concluded that not every one needs to be a formal member of the Catholic Church but only those 'who know' about Jesus and the Church.
This was Cardinal Marchetti's original mistake, he used the false premise, and we inferred that we can the dead who are now in Heaven.

Catholic Mission said...

David:
What about Francis' first document...
Lionel:
Pope Francis uses the false premise as do the Jesuits.
_____________________

Is that one perfectly Ok if interpreted without the "irrational premise" of canonization of saints? (Since that's my understanding presently of what you mean by the "irrational premise".) Furthermore, can all of Francis' airplane comments be saved if you drop the "irrational premise"?

Lionel:
David this is not clear.
Please send me the question again.
______________________

David Brainerd said...

"Since it is assumed that we can personally know persons saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire, it is concluded that not every one needs to be a formal member of the Catholic Church but only those 'who know' about Jesus and the Church."

I don't think its as simple as you're trying to make it. Whether we can know who alive today fits in those categories or not is pretty irrelevant I think. Baptism of desire can't refer to Jews or Muslims who have no desire for baptism. Nor indeed can it refer to faith alonist Protestants who despise baptism and have no desire for it. Nor indeed does the concept of invincible ignorance apply in either case. If it were called invincible stupidity it might, but no, its called invincible ignorance. They're stupid but not ignorant, because they know Acts 2:38 and 1st Peter 3:21 show baptism is essential to salvation and have heard it a million times, but choose to follow Luther instead of Scripture.

So getting rid of this premise does not fix the out of control ecumenism of the Vatican II popes when they assert that Jews and Muslims and unbaptized faith alonist Prots can be saved without baptism. The council and the popes following it are still in error for their Baptist-style rejection of baptism's necessity.

Catholic Mission said...

David:
I don't think its as simple as you're trying to make it.
Lionel:
This was Cardinal Marchetti's simple error.
________________________

Whether we can know who alive today fits in those categories or not is pretty irrelevant I think.
Lionel:
Yes. We cannot know.
_________________________

Baptism of desire can't refer to Jews or Muslims who have no desire for baptism.
Lionel:
It cannot.
_________________________

Nor indeed can it refer to faith alonist Protestants who despise baptism and have no desire for it. Nor indeed does the concept of invincible ignorance apply in either case.
Lionel:
It does not.
________________________

If it were called invincible stupidity it might, but no, its called invincible ignorance. They're stupid but not ignorant, because they know Acts 2:38 and 1st Peter 3:21 show baptism is essential to salvation and have heard it a million times, but choose to follow Luther instead of Scripture.
Lionel:
Baptism of water and Catholic Faith are essential for salvation.
______________________

So getting rid of this premise does not fix the out of control ecumenism of the Vatican II popes when they assert that Jews and Muslims and unbaptized faith alonist Protestants can be saved without baptism.
Lionel:
The liberals,the professors, the pontifican universities, bishops and cardinals, insist that Catholic lay men and women change their personal understanding of the Faith.They say, this is the new theology. This is Vatican Council II for them. When teh laity are aware of the false premise, they will not fall for this ruse.
___________________

The council and the popes following it are still in error for their Baptist-style rejection of baptism's necessity.

Lionel:
The Council can be interpreted as affirming the necessity of the baptism of water. This is there in AG 7 and LG 14.
________________________

David Brainerd said...

But the council was purposefully contradictory....like Obama. That it asserts something means nothing when it asserts it only to later contradict it.

Catholic Mission said...

David:
But the council was purposefully contradictory....like Obama. That it asserts something means nothing when it asserts it only to later contradict it.
Lionel:
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued by Cardinal Marchetti was contradictory.The confusion has been brought into Vatican Council II.
However if we are aware of the irrational premise then we can interpret Vatican Council II in a non contradictory way.
LG 16 for example would not contradict AG 7 and LG 14. There would be no contradiction in Vatican Council II to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
However if we use the premise, if we assume salvation in Heaven is visible on earth and there are personally known persons who are saved without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water, then Vatican Council II would appear ambigous and contradictory. Then LG 16 would contradict AG 7 and LG 14 and also the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
Cardinal Raymond Burke and Bishop Athansius Schiner use the premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.

David Brainerd said...

"However if we are aware of the irrational premise then we can interpret Vatican Council II in a non contradictory way."

But why should you? You could also interpret the Book of Mormon in a non-contradictory way, but that doesn't mean its a good idea.

Catholic Mission said...

David:
"However if we are aware of the irrational premise then we can interpret Vatican Council II in a non contradictory way."

But why should you?

Lionel:
David I don't think you have followed what I am saying. What is the irrational premise for you?

It is the premise used in reasoning which decides the conclusion reached. Here it is independent of the text, Vatican Council II.

As a mentioned in a previous blog post'it is only in the present times that there can be an exception.
For example there would have to be a case in 2015 as such for it to be an exception. If someone died without the baptism of water and the Church declares that person a saint, centuries back, then that person cannot be an exception to the dogma today in 2015.

A possibility which happened in the past cannot be an exception to the dogma today.
Assuming there are such persons how would we know who they are and how would they be exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma on salvation today ? They cannot be exceptions today. This would be thinking irrationally.

Traditionalits recommend the Catechism of Pope Pius X and they assume that those saved in with implicit desire or in invincible ignorance are always saved without the baptism of water and they are visible, nameable, and personally known in the present times (2015).So it is concluded that they are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma. This is irrational.
This irrationality is common in the SSPX. They criticize Feeneyism since they assume there are known exceptions in the present times to the strict interpretation of the dogma on salvation.They have been contradicted by the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 which stated that the SSPX affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus without exceptions.'

So if I know that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance is not an exception to the dogma, then would LG 16 be a contradiction to the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
What do you think?
Can there be exceptions in Vatican Council II to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
And if they are exceptions why are they exceptions, could you explain?