Sunday, August 30, 2015

Ask the wife 2

Ask the wife 1
Immagine correlataImmagine correlata
Well I did show my wife your post on your blog and she said: " Nobody KNOWS where they are going until they die."
Lionel:
You've missed the point again and have asked her the wrong question.
Ask her:
1.Is she familiar with the concepts objective-subjective, abstract-concrete, visible-invisible.
2. Then if she says YES then ask her: if she cut her finger and saw a little blood, would the blood she saw be visible or invisible, objective or subjective.
If she says NO to question 1 then there is nothing more to say.
3. Then ask her about the baptism of your first child. When you'll went into the Church was the baptism visible or invisible, concrete or abstract, known or unknown.
4. Ask he about your children's feelings for God or their country. For her are the feelings which the children have in their mind, abstract or concrete for her, are they objective or subjective, are they visible or invisible for her.
Once you and your wife have discussed this then I can ask you a further question.
_____________________________________________________________
Immagine correlata
Now ask the wife.

1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2015, can we personally know them by name  ? Explicit or implicit for us ?

2) Could Catholics in the past see or know  persons in Heaven, saved with the baptism of desire or martyrdom, without the baptism of water? Would this be possible in Baltimore in 1808 or Boston, USA in 1949?Explicit for implicit for them?
3Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ? Can implicit and invisible cases be exceptions to the dogma?

Fine we have agreement on all this since these are common sense issues.

 'Could Catholics BE in Heaven, saved with the baptism of desire or martyrdom, without the baptism of water? Would this be possible in Baltimore in 1808 or Boston, USA in 1949?'
Note : I have  said in other blog posts that we can accept the baptism of desire and being saved with martrydom with the baptism of water.

However  when the American Catholics in Baltimore and Boston suggest that being saved with the baptism of desire  or in martyrdom is a baptism equivalent to the baptism of water, the issue is how would they know ? How could they see or know these cases ? So this would only be a personal opinion of theirs. It would be speculation.
Secondly how could they set aside the dogma which says all need to be formal members of the Church; all need faith and  baptism for salvation ? This is heresy.They are rejecting the dogma with this opinion.
Thirdly how could any one in pre-1808 know of someone saved without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water  unless that person went to  Heaven and confirmed it.
The Church does not tell us that any one in the past had a personal revelation accepted by the Catholic Church and that we have to accept it.

Conclusion:
 So there were no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus , the Feeneyite traditional interpretation.There were no exceptions in1808 when the Baltimore Catechism was issued and neither in 1949 when  the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston was issued. The Letter issued by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvatggiani suggested that the baptism of desire and  baptism of blood excluded the baptism of water and so were exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma. The Letter also suggested that these cases were explicit , to be exceptions to the teaching on all needing to be card carrying members of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.This was speculation and irrational. There were also no such cases, known at that time or in the past.

So can there be any exceptions n 2015 to the old ecclesiology ?
Answer: No.

ASK THE FRANCISCANS OF THE IMMACULATE
When the Franciscans of the Immaculate are asked to accept Vatican Council II they must clarify that they accept Vatican Council II  but with the old ecclesiology.
This means they accept Vatican Council II with the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They also must clarify that they reject  the new ecclesiology of the Vatican Curia, in which Vatican Council II is a break with the old ecclesiology because of alleged exceptions.
So if Fr.Sabino Ardito does not accept Vatican Council II along with the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, it has to be rejected.
If any one in the Vatican Curia says they accept Vatican Council II ask them to be specific.
Is it with Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance)  being explicit or implicit  for us.
Vaguely referring to Vatican Council II for those who discern, and then  denying reason and truth, is cheating.
___________________

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Another approach for the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate is to simply announce that they affirm the Feeneyite version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which is at the centre of the old ecclesiology.
 If there are objections then these could be the answers:
 1. The Holy Office 1940 said Fr.Feeney was wrong with the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Answer: There were no known exceptions in 1949.The Holy Office 1949 was factually incorrect.No one in Boston or Rome in 1949 knew of someone saved outside the Church i.e without 'faith and baptism'.
___________________

2.The Baltimore Catechism suggests there are three baptisms and not one.
Answer: There was no known baptism of desire or baptism of blood at that time, with or without the baptism of water. So this was an innovation. An opinion. No theory.This was speculation.A theoretical case was considered to be explicit, like the baptism of water which is explicit.
__________________

3.Vatican Council II says that a person can be saved in LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2.
Answer: Yes and these cases would include the baptism of water, according to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441), Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14), and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257( The necessity of the baptism of water for salvation).
__________________

4.The Catechism 1257 says God is not limited to the Sacraments.
Answer: We do not know any such case, so  CCC 1257 is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and Church-tradition over the centuries.A possibility known only to God cannot be an explicit exception to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church in 2015.
- Lionel Andrades
____________________


Franciscans of the Immaculate Lay Association intervention needed
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/08/franciscans-of-immaculate-lay_29.html

1
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/08/ask-wife.html

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

If BOD without BOW is irrational, why does Pope Benedict XVI accept it? Joseph Ratzinger holds a double doctorate--one in theology. If he's irrational, canon law says he can't be pope because irrational people are excluded from the papacy. He would be insane. If he's not insane, wouldn't the Grace of the Holy Spirit prevent him from teaching this error--as well as Pope Francis? Are you claiming to be smarter and more rational than two popes? If they taught error, they can't be popes, yet you say it's irrational and false teaching. What degrees in theology do you hold? How do you see the error and two popes (Benedict and Francis) do not??

Catholic Mission said...

Anonymou(Ad Altare Dei)
So even the sedevacantists make the same mistake.
Why don't you notice the error in the writings of Bishop Sanborn and Fr.Cekada.
Why don't you correct them?
________________________

It is irrational to say that BOD,BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS, implying that these cases are explicit and seen in the flesh to be exceptions to all needing to enter the Church in the present times.It is a fact of life that we cannot see the dead who are now in Heaven with or without the baptism of water.This is not theology this is common sense. Even a non Catholic or a school boy could recognise it.
__________________________

How do I see the error and the sedevantists cannot even after it is all explained to them?
__________________________

Anonymous said...

Then why can't the popes see it with doctorates in theology and the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Sedevacantists are not protected from error---popes are protected. The sedevacantists don't hold doctorates. Benedict 16 has two earned doctorates.

Why can you see it and the popes can't ? What's your level
Of education? Do you have the Holy Spirit protecting you from error??

Anonymous said...

Good point. If a "school boy or non Catholic can see it" why doesn't the pope who is highly educated see it? Why do you recognize the error and the man who was promised not to teach error teaches BOD without BOW? The Holy Spirit enlightens you but not the pope? You can see the error, a school boy and a non-Catholic, but NOT the POPE???

Catholic Mission said...



Then why can't the popes see it with doctorates in theology and the guidance of the Holy Spirit?
Lionel:
I cannot speak for the popes.I do know that many others have known what I am saying here.It is not original.
For some reason they were silent or unable to express themself and make this known.
____________________________

Sedevacantists are not protected from error---popes are protected.
Lionel:
So when they know that there is an error they could admit it.
__________________________

The sedevacantists don't hold doctorates. Benedict 16 has two earned doctorates.

Why can you see it and the popes can't ? What's your level
Of education? Do you have the Holy Spirit protecting you from error??

Lionel:
So what if I an ordinary lay man can see it ? You still are not accepting it.
__________________________

Anonymous said...

Wrong. Popes are protected from MAKING error, not making it and at some point correcting it. Cite one theologian or papal decree that supports this novel idea. The Holy Spirit is not guiding and protecting the pope if what you say about Fenneyism is true, because Benedict and Francis BOTH teach BOD without BOW

Catholic Mission said...

Popes are protected from MAKING error,

Lionel:
Yes when they speak ex cathedra and in line with the tradition of other popes.
_____________________________

not making it and at some point correcting it. Cite one theologian or papal decree that supports this novel idea.
Lionel:
The pope is protected from error when he speaks ex cathedra and in line with Tradition.Otherwise he can make errors of judgement in daily things, like all of us.
______________________________


The Holy Spirit is not guiding and protecting the pope if what you say about Fenneyism is true, because Benedict and Francis BOTH teach BOD without BOW

Lionel:
The error originated much earlier.The popes then were not aware of it.Possibly Pope Benedict and Pope Francis were not aware of it.
The confusion was created with the Baltimore Catechism, it was accepted by the Catechism of Pius X and confirmed by Pope Pius XII in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.It got past two more popes as it was placed in Vatican Council II. It was accepted from Pope John Paul II upto Pope Francis.
It was an innocent mistake, un-noticed by many and which can be corrected now.
In the past there was no correction from the traditionalists and sedevacantists who also were not aware of the error.
_________________________________

Anonymous said...

How can the popes not be aware of something you claim is so simple a child or non Catholic could see it? That it is irrational to teach? Second the pope is not only infallible when teaching ex cathedra, but when promoting laws for the church such as the Code of canon law which teaches BOD without BOW and that is infallible--promulgated by Pope Benedict XV!!

Catholic Mission said...



How can the popes not be aware of something you claim is so simple a child or non Catholic could see it?
Lionel:
They overlooked it just as I did once upon a time.
___________________________

That it is irrational to teach?

Lionel:
They did not notice or did not want to notice the irrationality.
__________________________


Second the pope is not only infallible when teaching ex cathedra, but when promoting laws for the church such as the Code of canon law which teaches BOD without BOW and that is infallible--promulgated by Pope Benedict XV!!

Lionel:
The dogma is infallible as it was specifically defined.
The dogma does not mention BOD,BOB or I.I as exceptions.
Even without the BOW they are not exceptions or relevant to the dogma.
___________________________

Anonymous said...

They didn't know something was irrational with doctorates in theology? Yeah. Right. Sure. The Holy Spirit would guide them to notice it. If they "did not want to notice the irrationality" they are heretics. BOD and BOB never were, nor are they now, considered "exceptions." If you receive BOD or BOB you are a member of Christ's One True Church--so what's your problem? It only becomes problematic if you claim BOW is necessary IN ADDITION to BOB and BOD--or that BOB and BOD do not admit you to membership in the CHURCH. Trent did define BOD, stating the necessity of water baptism, .."OR THE DESIRE THEREOF."

Catholic Mission said...

BOD and BOB never were, nor are they now, considered "exceptions."
Lionel:
Agreed that being saved with implicit desire for the baptism of water was never exceptions,then and now.Neither martyrdom.
Also being saved with implicit desire or martyrdom were never baptisms like the baptism of water, in 1808 or now.Physically they could not know of any case at that time.So it was theoretical speculation.
_________________________

If you receive BOD or BOB you are a member of Christ's One True Church--so what's your problem?
Lionel:
Yes, these are theoretical cases so they are not a problem with or without the baptism of water.They never were, so they were not mentioned in the text of the dogma by any of the three Councils, which defined extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
_________________________


It only becomes problematic if you claim BOW is necessary IN ADDITION to BOB and BOD
Lionel:
It's theoretical so it is not problematic.Either way it is not an exception to EENS.
__________________________


--or that BOB and BOD do not admit you to membership in the CHURCH.

Lionel:
It's theoretical. So one can argue...as long as it is not implied that these cases are known, and so are relevant or exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation.
________________________

Trent did define BOD, stating the necessity of water baptism, .."OR THE DESIRE THEREOF."
Lionel:
Yes.
We accept it in theory.
Since Trent did not say that these cases were explicit, must be followed without the baptism of water or that they were exceptions to EENS.Trent did not make these inferences.
_______________________

Anonymous said...

Implicit or unknown it is heretical to say one can be saved apart from the Catholic Church as V2 does. In the same sense if it was said that Christ COULD commit sin, even though He never did or could, it is heresy because you are saying it is POSSIBLE for the ALL HOLY GOD to sin! Likewise it is heretical to say there COULD be exceptions even if there aren't any!

Catholic Mission said...



Implicit or unknown it is heretical to say one can be saved apart from the Catholic Church as V2 does.
Lionel:
Vatican Council II does not say it unless you infer it does.
____________________________


In the same sense if it was said that Christ COULD commit sin, even though He never did or could, it is heresy because you are saying it is POSSIBLE for the ALL HOLY GOD to sin!

Lionel:
The text does not say it unless you infer it does.
____________________________


Likewise it is heretical to say there COULD be exceptions even if there aren't any!

Lionel:
Agreed!
I believe being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16) etc would always be followed by the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.(Vatican Council II, AG 7, LG 14., Cantate Domino Council of Florence 1441 etc)
If someone insists and says, an LG 16 case would be saved without the baptism of water, I point out, that even then too, it is a theoretical case and so is not an exception or relevant to the teaching on all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation. This is the ordinary means of salvation.
________________________________

Anonymous said...

Wrong! As was pointed out, admitting theoretically Christ could sin is heresy, even though He didn't ! V2 clearly says of Protestant sects "the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as a means of salvation." This is heresy. Christ does not use false religions as a means of salvation, and to say so hypothetically is still heresy, just like saying Christ could hypothetically sin. This is not "how I read it" it's what V2 actually says, and even if only theoretical, it is heretical!

Catholic Mission said...



Wrong!
Lionel:
Why do you say wrong, when I have stated above that 'The text does not say it unless you infer it does.' So I do not infer it.
__________________________

As was pointed out, admitting theoretically Christ could sin is heresy, even though He didn't !
Lionel:
The text does not say it. It has to be inferred. I do not infer it.You don't have to either.
__________________________


V2 clearly says of Protestant sects "the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as a means of salvation."
Lionel:
A Protestant can be saved in his religion. However when he is in Heaven he is a Catholic.In Heaven there are only Catholics.In general the ordinary means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.Outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation.
There are many good things in the Protestant religion. They believe in Jesus, they believe in the Trinity, there liturgy comes from the post Constantine period as does ours. They follow the Gospel, in different ways, there is an orientation towards what is good and holy...
________________________


This is heresy. Christ does not use false religions as a means of salvation, and to say so hypothetically is still heresy, just like saying Christ could hypothetically sin.
Lionel:
Heresy? I do not have to infer that I know of a case of a Protestant saved by a religion. The text does not say it and I do not make the inference.
There could be elements of sanctification and truth(LG 8) for a Protestant in his religion even though the religion itself is not a means of salvation.
The text of Vatican Council II, I repeat, does not make this claim. You can infer or not infer, hypothetically.This would be personal and not Vatican Council II.
_______________________

This is not "how I read it" it's what V2 actually says, and even if only theoretical, it is heretical!
Lionel:
For me the ordinary means of salvation is the Catholic Church, all need faith and baptism(AG 7). If a Protestant is saved in his religion it would not be an exception to all needing faith and baptism in the present times(2015) since this case would be invisible for us.Invisible caees cannot be exceptions to the dogma.
__________________________

Anonymous said...

When V2 says Protestant sects are a " means of salvation" there's nothing to infer . They are saying just that. You then go on to say that if a Protestant is saved it's not an exception because it's not visible to us. So if a Christ sins and we don't see it He's sinless? Under V2 Satanists could also have " elements of truth" since they believe in God and fallen angels. Stupid doesn't even begin to cover your "reasoning."

Catholic Mission said...



When V2 says Protestant sects are a " means of salvation" there's nothing to infer .

Lionel:
Please cite the whole paragraph.
I infer it to mean that it is possible for a Protestant to be saved and this does not contradict the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
Sedevacantists and the SSPX who want to reject Vatican Council II interpret this to mean these are 1) explicit cases in the present times and so they contradict EENS 2) these are cases in the present times saved without membership in the Catholic Church and so they contradict EENS.
The text does not say all this but they have to imply all this, for this is the position of their teachers,superiors, of Archbishop Lefebvre etc.
I want to accept Vatican Council II in agreement with the dogma EENS - so I do not make that inference.
_________________________


They are saying just that. You then go on to say that if a Protestant is saved it's not an exception because it's not visible to us.

Lionel:
Yes since if he is in Heaven he is a Catholic. God has sent a preacher to him ( St.Thomas Aquinas)etc.
______________________

So if a Christ sins and we don't see it He's sinless?

Lionel:
How can Christ sin?
If a Protestant, a human being, sins or does not sin, is saved or is not saved, it would only be known to God, in personal cases.
This unknown person would not be relevant to all needing 'faith and baptism' (AG 7) in the present times for salvation.
_____________________


Under V2 Satanists could also have " elements of truth" since they believe in God and fallen angels.
Lionel:
The Protestant religion has elements of sanctification and truth but does not have the fullness of salvation, which is there in only the Catholic Church. There are limitations and errors.They have different doctrines and heresy.They do not have the Eucharist, the Mass and the Sacraments which are needed for salvation.
____________________