Wednesday, August 12, 2015

What is the Pius XII Error?

Immagine correlata
What is the Pius XII Error?
No one during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII could see or know someone without 'faith and baptism' and with baptism of desire/implicit desire or in invincible ignorance since this is humanly not possible.Pope Pius XII could not say that someone could be saved without faith and baptism who was  known to him.Since this would imply he went to Heaven and learnt about it. He had some source of knowing.
 So when he refers to being saved in implicit desire and in invincible ignorance , he means these cases will also be followed by the baptism of water.I would like to believe this but - he overlooked the mistake in the Letter issued by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston , which was approved during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII, makes this error when it criticizes  Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center.
The Letter implies that being saved with the baptism of desire (BOD)  and in invincible ignorance(I.I) are exceptions to the traditional literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
How could BOD and I.I be exceptions when no one one earth can  see these cases in Heaven?
How could it be speculated that these cases are in Heaven without 'faith and baptism' when there is no way of humanly knowing ?
Who among us today or tomorrow will know of a BOD or I.I case  saved without 'faith and baptism' ? No one.
So the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Richard Cushing  and the Jesuits  made a mistake when they placed BOD and I.I in Vatican Council II ( AG 7, LG 14). There were zero-cases in their reality  and there was no precedent of knowing any such case over the centuries. Humanly it was not possible.
Similarly the traditionalists try to  prove Pope Pius XII  correct and say St. Emerentiana is in Heaven and without  the  baptism of water.How could any of us humans know this for a fact? Who has seen or her  in Heaven to know that she is there without the baptism of water?
 I am not saying that we cannot speculate and  believe .I am saying we humans in general cannot  now know of any exception to the dogmatic teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS)
For us humans there can not  be an exception to the dogmatic teaching,. It is not physically possible.
So this was a mistake made during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. 
No one in Boston knew of any salvation outside the Church. No one there could say that in the past ( pre-1949 times)  there was salvation outside the Church.
How can Feeneyism be condemned today when we don't know of any one saved with  BOD and I.I and without the baptism of water?
How could Pope Benedict as Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Ladaria ( as Fr.Luiz Ladaria  and President of the ITC)  condemn  Feeneyism in the theological papers of the International Theological Commission? They did not know of any exception to Feeneyism and no magisterial text before 1949 makes this claim.
Before 1949 there were references to BOD and I.I and it is not said that  cases are explicit and known to us. It is not inferred that they are exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation. If it was inferred as such it would be an empirical mistake.
The wrong inference was made by Pope Benedict  and Cardinal Ladaria  in two papers of the ITC ( Christianity and the World Religions and The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptized). They changed Church doctrine based on the error overlooked by Pius XII.
Similarly Redemptoris, Missio and Dominus Iesus do not clearly affirm the literal interpretation of EENS ( Feeneyism) since they assume BOD and I.I are relevant to the dogma.
How could they accept there being salvation outside the Church? Could they see the dead-saved now in Heaven?
Why did Cardinal Ratzinger in the Catechism ( 1257) on The Necessity of Baptism say God is not limited to the Sacraments? Did he personally know of any exception?
We have to keep in mind that there is no known salvation outside  the Church.None of us can know of any exception despite the magisterial error  since 1949.
The 1949 magisterium contradicted the pre-1949 magisterium.Pius XII made an error.
All non Catholics today are on the path to Hell (with Original sin and mortal sins committed in this state of Original Sin) unless they convert into the Church and live her traditional teachings.
The popes since Pius XII have made an objective mistake. It is a fact of life that we cannot see the dead who are now in Heaven. So we cannot say that any one is there without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. We cannot conclude that these invisible cases are objective exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
-Lionel Andrades



Questions and Answers : Vatican Council II is Feeneyite. It has an exclusivist ecclesiology
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/questions-and-answers-vatican-council.html


Questions and Answers : Evangelizing with Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/questions-and-answers-evangelising-with.html


Questions and Answers : Vatican Council II affirms the Social Kingship of Christ the King
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/questions-and-answers-vatican-council_7.html





Questions and Answers : Did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make a factual mistake ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/questions-and-answers-did-letter-of.html

Christopher Mwashinga and I are reading the same text of Vatican Council II. He uses the premise and inference and I do not.

  1. dear Mr Lionel, the Church's teachings, doctrines & practices can't change ... Jesus is the same now, then & forever

  2. They have changed it in the article by Christopher Mwashinga which I sent you.This is taught in religion class in Catholic schools

  3. They can be changed if you use an irrational premise.Christopher Mwashinga projects hypothetical cases as being objective..

  4. Then Christopher infers that these hypothtical cases which are objective are exceptions to EENS.

  5. Christopher Mwashinga and I are reading the same text of Vatican Council II. He uses the premise and inference and I do not.

  6. You and I are reading the same text of VC2 but for you LG 16 is explicit and for me it is known only to God.


  7. So for you and Fr.Cekada and Bp. Sanborn LG 16 would be an exception to traditional EENS. Same VC2 text but...

  8. The Catholic school children and I read the same text of VC2. They use the I can see the dead premise. I do not .
  9. -Lionel Andrades

Based on an irrational premise there is a new interpretation of Vatican Council II taught in religion class at schools

  1. I just read it right on my eyes CHURCH HAS ACCEPTED THERE'S SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH from school assignment.

  2. But based on an irrational premise and inference which is also used by Bp, Sanborn and Fr.Cekada.

Christopher Mwashinga projects hypothetical cases as being objectively known.This is the basis of the New Theology.

Pope Pius XII made an innocent mistake

  1. stop calling Pope Pius XII heretical ....


  2. It was an innocent mistake made by Pope Pius XII.

  3. -Lionel Andrades

Baltimore Catechism made an empirical mistake : there can only be one known baptism for us human beings

Immagine correlata

Baltimore Catechism 1885:

Q. 644. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: 1.Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.
Lionel:
There is only one known baptism it is the baptism of water. It can be repeated it can be administered, it can be seen.
We cannot physically see or know the baptism of desire or blood.So we would not know of any case.
Who in 1885 in Baltimore could see or know the baptism of desire and blood without the baptism of water? No one.
So this is speculation here. It is a mistake.
____________________________________

Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.
Lionel:
Unknown case. Speculation.Why call it baptism when the case cannot be known.This seems at attempt in 1885 to do away with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
______________________________________



Q. 651. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.
Lionel:
This is called martyrdom. Why call it a baptism? 
__________________________


Q. 652. What is the baptism of blood most commonly called?
A. The baptism of blood is most commonly called martyrdom, and those who receive it are called martyrs. It is the death one patiently suffers from the enemies of our religion, rather than give up Catholic faith or virtue. We must not seek martyrdom, though we must endure it when it comes.
Lionel:
Here there is an attempt to name martrydom as the baptism of blood.They succeeded.


Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.

Lionel:
Speculative.Hypothetical.It must not be inferred that these cases are known to us and so are exceptions to EENS. They are not explicit for us human beings.



Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.
Lionel:
We do not know of any case of the baptism of desire or blood in real life. They are not objective.When they occur they would only be known to God.
So it cannot be inferred that the baptism of desire and blood will exclude the baptism of water. There is no known exception for us human beings.
-Lionel Andrades