Comment on the blog LMS Chairman
As a professor of theology at Oxford Joseph, you do not have the freedom to teach the old ecclesiology without Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani's irrational inference.This issue is also central to offering the Traditional Latin Mass under the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis.
Without Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani's irrationality, used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II ,no priest is being allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass or the Novus Ordo Mass. This was not mentioned in the article.
The article in the CH does not say that the let and and let live attitude is restricted to only those who discard the old ecclesiology. It is a live and let live attitude only when it is the old rite with the new ecclesiology.
If a Catholic priest in England were to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in accord with Vatican Council II he would get the same treatment as the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.
Why did Vatican Council II have to mention being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) along with orthodox passages ? It was to accomodate the error which came from the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office.This error was approved by Pope Pius XII.
Example:
A
Here is the orthodox passage in Ad Gentes 7 in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-AG 7
B
The following passage in Ad Gentes 7 is based on Marchetti assuming being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire were explicit for us in the present times, and so were exceptions to the traditional Feeneyite version of the dogma on salvation.
Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6)-AG 7
If you interpret B as being implicit, invisible for us and known only to God , it is not an exception to A. The ecclesiology remains traditional.
The New Ecclesiology is based on accepting B as being explicit, objecitve and seen in the flesh, in the present times.
So can the Traditional Latin Mass be offered by priests who consider B not an exception to A? No mention of this in your article.
Why did Vatican Council II have to mention 'imperfect communion with the Church' (UR3) or 'seeds of the word'(AG 11) as a means of salvation? It is because of the error in 1949 which infers there is known salvation outside the Church and all do not need to be formal members of the Church in the present times.This is the new theology, it is based on there being known salvation outside the Church; all not needing 'faith and baptism'(AG 7). This is the new ecclesiology it is a rejection of Feeneyism with an irrational premise ( salvation with the baptism of desire etc are personally known in the present times) and irrational inference ( since they are known BOD, BOB, I.I. refer to known exceptions to the Feeneyite version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus).
So can a priest offer the Traditional Latin Mass when he considers Vatican Council II as not being a break with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, since salvation in Heaven is not visible to us on earth, for any one to be exceptions to the old ecclesiology ?
This point was not covered in your article.
Without Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani's irrationality, used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II ,no priest is being allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass or the Novus Ordo Mass. This was not mentioned in the article.
The article in the CH does not say that the let and and let live attitude is restricted to only those who discard the old ecclesiology. It is a live and let live attitude only when it is the old rite with the new ecclesiology.
If a Catholic priest in England were to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in accord with Vatican Council II he would get the same treatment as the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.
Why did Vatican Council II have to mention being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) along with orthodox passages ? It was to accomodate the error which came from the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office.This error was approved by Pope Pius XII.
Example:
A
Here is the orthodox passage in Ad Gentes 7 in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-AG 7
B
The following passage in Ad Gentes 7 is based on Marchetti assuming being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire were explicit for us in the present times, and so were exceptions to the traditional Feeneyite version of the dogma on salvation.
Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6)-AG 7
If you interpret B as being implicit, invisible for us and known only to God , it is not an exception to A. The ecclesiology remains traditional.
The New Ecclesiology is based on accepting B as being explicit, objecitve and seen in the flesh, in the present times.
So can the Traditional Latin Mass be offered by priests who consider B not an exception to A? No mention of this in your article.
Why did Vatican Council II have to mention 'imperfect communion with the Church' (UR3) or 'seeds of the word'(AG 11) as a means of salvation? It is because of the error in 1949 which infers there is known salvation outside the Church and all do not need to be formal members of the Church in the present times.This is the new theology, it is based on there being known salvation outside the Church; all not needing 'faith and baptism'(AG 7). This is the new ecclesiology it is a rejection of Feeneyism with an irrational premise ( salvation with the baptism of desire etc are personally known in the present times) and irrational inference ( since they are known BOD, BOB, I.I. refer to known exceptions to the Feeneyite version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus).
So can a priest offer the Traditional Latin Mass when he considers Vatican Council II as not being a break with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, since salvation in Heaven is not visible to us on earth, for any one to be exceptions to the old ecclesiology ?
This point was not covered in your article.
-Lionel Andrades
Pope Francis permits the Traditional Latin Mass only with the new ecclesiology and compromise : Joseph Shaw looks the other way
Posts
