Tuesday, February 10, 2015

For Francisco Romero Carrasquillo too deceased are living exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney

 
The Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case.
 
 
Francisco Romero Carrasquillo on the blog Ite Ad Thomam rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as interpreted over the centuries,  since he infers ( knowingly or unknowingly ) that there is known salvation outside the Church in the present times. This was the same error of Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani.   For Carrasquillo the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to explicit cases, personally known in 2015, to be exceptions to the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
 
He holds the contradictory position of CCC 1257 which says all need the baptism of water for salvation but some do not.
 
Francisco Romero Carrasquillo cannot conceive of the magisterium making an objective mistake. So like Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton,  he assumes that the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong. Since for Carrasquillo the deceased who are now in Heaven, saved with the baptism of desire etc, are visible on earth, to become  living exceptions, to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. Based on this irrationality, he has created a theology.
 
To accomodate this visible dead theory, the Marchetti inference, he rejects Feeneyism as a theology, which says there are no exceptions to the dogma.-L.A

Quaeritur: 'Invisible' Membership in the Church?

 
Quaeritur: Reading more of Fenton's writings, I am becoming slightly confused... In several places he emphatically shows that the Church is a visible society, and that there is not an invisible Church, and thus that membership in the Church means something visible, and not invisible.

And yet, he also states that the Catholic dogma is not that one must be a member in order to be saved, only that one must be in some way within the Church; and that it is possible to be within the Church without actually being a member, if one has an implicit desire (hence baptism by desire or by blood).

My question is this: how can we say that even implicit desire makes one within the Church if the Church is a visible society? If you can be in the Church by some way other than visible membership, doesn't it follow that one can be in the Church invisibly?

I'm having a hard time seeing how Fenton doesn't contradict himself.(Lionel: He contradicts himself since he is trying to adapt to the irrationality of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. How can the baptism of desire be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus? What has the baptism of desire to do with the dogma when we do not know of any such case in real life? How can it be a defacto, explicit exception? Catholics are confused since no one wants to say that the magisterium of the Church has accepted an objective error.)

For example, these two articles: here and here.


Respondeo: The Church, in addition to being the Mystical Body of Christ, which is primarily a supernatural, invisible reality, is also and secondarily a visible society, with a visible structure and hierarchy, visible worship, etc. And hence those of us who participate fully in this visible society are said to be its visible members.(Lionel: Agreed!)


Now someone who is in the state of grace and through no fault of his own is outside of its visible structure can be said to 'belong' to the Church invisibly, without being a visible member through its worship, government, etc.(Lionel: We do not know and cannot know this person. So how can he be a visible member of the Catholic Church ? How can we say that this invisible for us case, is saved without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith?)  Being a member is much more than belonging. The latter implies somehow mystically participating in the Mystical Body of Christ (being branches of the vine), (Lionel: This is something we can accept in faith but it will be a hypothtical case. So we must not consider it an exception to the dogma. This was the objective mistake made by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani in 1959 in the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston) whereas the former implies also participating in the visible structure of the Church.



For example, a child who is baptized in a Protestant church is invisibly in the state of sanctifying grace and hence belongs to the Mystical Body, but does not visibly profess the Catholic faith, does not visibly attend Catholic worship, and is not part of the hierarchical and legal structure of the Church (e.g., is not bound by canon law).
(Lionel: This is a hypothtical case and so it is not an exception to the dogma which tells us that all Protestants need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.)

I remember the pictures in the Baltimore Catechism (St. Joseph's edition): a boat with people in it (visible members) and some people out in the water hanging on to ropes attached to the boat, who are surviving thanks to the fact that they are still hanging on to the boat. Analogously you could say that some are members of the Mystical Body, whereas others merely 'belong' to the Mystical Body (participate in its saving nature) without being members. A picture that is really worth a thousand words.
(Lionel: The picture has its limitations. Those who are saved or going to be saved with the baptism of desire or blood could also receive the baptism of water. Secondly those who are saved as such are invisible for us and so are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case. There are no known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus)

For more on this, I recommend Fr. Romanus' three-part article on Church membership, which goes more technically into the relevant distinctions as presented by the majority of the Church's classical theologians. -  Francisco Romero Carrasquillo
(Lionel: In the Notes it mentions Fr.Francois Laisney's, IS Feeneyism Catholic?  published by the SSPX ,USA's Angelus Press. Fr.Laisney does not notice the factual error in the Letter of the Holy Office  1949 1)

Pictures of HELL, an artist draws what she saw in Hell

Pictures of HELL, an artist draws what she saw in Hell.



http://gloria.tv/media/iCgfCpoA25Z


Extra ecclesiam nulla salus is linked to Vatican Council II. Louie Verrechio and Fr.Zuhlsdorf have still to discover it.

It’s true that there is no salvation outside the Holy Catholic Church, this Mystical Body of Christ of which we are called to be members- Louis Verrecchio
 
 
It’s true that there is no salvation outside the Holy Catholic Church, this Mystical Body of Christ of which we are called to be members could also be said by Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston as it has been said by Louis Verrecchio. The statement is also made by Fr.John Zuhlsdorf.
 
The same statement was made by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and it did not agree with Fr.Leonard Feeney.
So something is wrong somewhere it must be admitted by Verrecchio and Fr.Z.
None of the comments on this report by Louie supported Fr.Leonard Feeney. They did not even mention his name. Why ? Since they all assume that
1) there are visible and known cases in 2015 for someone to be saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.
2) There were magisterial documents (Mystici Corporis etc) which mentioned that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance referred to objective cases in the present times and that these documents stated that these cases were explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
3) Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the magisterium, cannot be wrong.
False! On all three counts it is false.


 
1) We cannot see the dead, there are no visible exceptions.
2) No Church document makes this claim. They mention being saved with implicit desire or in invincible ignorance but do not state that these cases are exceptions to the dogma. This is the wrong inference which is made when reading these Church documents before 1949.They can be read without the inference, the irrational premise.
3)Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger made the same error which comes from the 1949 Cardinal Marchetti letter.
 
Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the Marchetti theory.
 
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus is linked to Vatican Council II. Louie Verrechio and Fr.Zuhlsdorf have still to discover it.
-Lionel Andrades
 
February 10, 2015

Fr.John Zuhlsdorf made an objective mistake : irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/frjohn-zuhlsdorf-made-objective-mistake.html

What about the dogma on salvation which has 'evolved' for Fr.Zuhlsdorf ?

Featured ImageWhat about the dogma on salvation which has 'evolved' for Fr.Zuhlsdorf ? If you can get rid of an infallible teaching you can get rid of anything. Hilary White on LifeSites quotes Cardinal Raymond Burke saying "I will resist".
Yes - but Hilary White(LifeSites.com) and Fr.John Zuhlsdorf do not resist when extra ecclesiam nulla salus is discarded due to their being known exceptions to the defined dogma ( even when these exceptions refer to deceased persons).
Of course the Eucharist should not be given to Catholics living in adultery and yes it should not also be given to Catholics who reject an infallible teaching in public.
-Lionel Andrades

Fr.John Zuhlsdorf made an objective mistake : irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II

Fr.John Zuhlsdorf, blogger-priest, made an objective error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II when he used an irrational premise to interpret the Council.The result is a non traditional conclusion, a break with the past.
The fault is not with Vatican Council II but his assuming that salvation in Heaven is visible on earth to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
I sent him copies of the blog post 1 on Feb.07,2014 . Then yesterday (Feb.09,2015) I e-mailed him this report.2
I don't expect him to defend himself since the error is obvious and objective.It is not just one theology verses another. Instead we are faced with a factual error. It is  the factual error ( the dead in Heaven are visible and are exceptions to the Feeneyite version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus) which forms the basis for his theology.
Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger overlooked the same error. 3 Due to the oversight of Popes Pius XII, John XXII and Paul VI, the confusion was  recorded  all over Vatican Council II.It was as if the Council was called to incorporate this new teaching ( the dead are visible ) into Vatican Council II (UR 3, NA 2,LG 16 etc) .
However one has to use an inference along with the text in Vatican Council II to create the error. Thank God for those Council Fathers who were alert and blocked Archbishop Cushing and Fr.John Courtney Murray S.J .
Without the inference, without the Marchetti reasoning, Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is the strong point of the Council. It is traditional.Any Church document which does not contradict the dogma has to be traditional.
Pope John Paul II like Fr.Zuhlsdorf used the inference to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the past.So did the Bologna School and even traditionalists, like the Society of St.Pius X .
Without the important inference, the political Left will no more consider Vatican Council II as a super dogma.They  may want to neglect it in future.
Without the inference, traditionalists will now be able to say that a pastoral Council is dogmatic! It supports the infallible dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as it was known over the centuries.
Vatican Council II no more is a break with St.Francis of Assisi and St.Maximillian Kolbe, on outside the church there is no salvation.
 Get rid of the inference and we are back to the past. Avoid the premise and the conclusion is traditional.This is the missing link in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
To re-phrase Fr.Zuhlsdorf's well known line, 3 avoid the red and do the blue.4
-Lionel Andrades
 
 
1
Fr.John Zuhlsdorf interprets Vatican Council II with Marchetti's theory so the Council for him is ambigous and a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus-1
 
2.