Tuesday, February 23, 2016

CDF Notification on Fr.Jacques Dupuis S.j repeats the error of the 1949 Holy Office Letter : the mistake was placed in Vatican Council in so many passages

When Cardinal Ratzinger issued the Notification on Fr. Jacquis Dupuis S.J he did not know that Gaudium Spes 22 comes from the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. So he interpreted it as an explicit case, objectively visible and so an exception to the Feeneyite version of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
  For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.- Gaudium Spes 22
It was because the 1949 Letter assumed that invisble cases are exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma EENS, Gaudium et Spes(GS)  could suggest that the Holy Spirit is present outside the visible boundaries of the Church in a salvific way and so non Christians do not need to convert.
 
5. The Church’s faith teaches that the Holy Spirit, working after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, is always the Spirit of Christ sent by the Father, who works in a salvific way in Christians as well as non-Christians. It is therefore contrary to the Catholic faith to hold that the salvific action of the Holy Spirit extends beyond the one universal salvific economy of the Incarnate Word.- CDF, Notification on Fr.Jacques Dupuis S.J  2001
There is ' one universal salvific economy of the Incarnate Word' and for me it is there in only the Catholic Church, within the boundaries of the Catholic Church. Cardinal Rartzinger could not say this since the 1949 Letter and Vatican Council II suggest there is salvation outside the Church, for those who want to believe there is salvation outside the Church. 
It is because the 1949 Letter assumes there is salvation outside the Church, at Vatican Council II it is said the Holy Spirit is present among non Christians and vaguely suggests they will be saved in their own religion, since, outside the Church there is salvation. But is there salvation outside the Church it is now being asked after some 50 years of Vatican Council II? Who are these persons saved outside the Church? What are their names? Who on earth could have seen them saved outside the Church? How was this possible physically?
 
The passage in GS should not have been there because they made an objective mistake in the 1949 Letter. No one in 1949 Boston or 1891 Baltimore or over the centuries could have seen or known someone in Heaven without the baptism of water.
It is a fact of life that baptism of desire cases with or without the baptism of water are in Heaven.They can only be known to God. So how can they be considered exceptions to the Feneyite interpretation of the dogma? Yet the 1949 Letter suggested 'the desire and longing' of a hypothetical pèrson, was an explicit exception.The  Baltimore Catechism called the desire for the baptism of water, a baptism like the baptism of water.It also suggested that it has the same effect as the baptism of water when they could not have known any such case.The catechuman who desired the baptism of water before he dies is a hypothetical case.
No pope wanted to make the correction. Exceptions to the dogma EENS was accepted in the 1949 Letter by even Archbishop Lefebvre and the traditionalists.In 1965 the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney was still not lifted.Archbishop Lefebvre did not defend Fr.Leonard Feeney.
So it was assumed at Vatican Council II that the Church no longer held the 'strict interpretation' of the dogma EENS and sInce there was known salvation outside the Church for them in 1949-1965, GS says 'the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery'.
So in the CDF  Notification on Fr.J. Dupuis, Cardinal Ratzinger could not say that all need to formally enter the Church with no exceptions.For him there were exceptions! After Vatican Council II the Church's theology was Cristological and no more ecclesiocentric.The switch was made from traditional Feeneyism to irrational and innovative Cushingism.
It seems as if Vatican Council II was called, to implement the error in the 1949 Letter and to reject of the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.
 
We can see this in so many passages.
Traditionalists are critical of the subsist it (LG 8) passage. They do not note that this reference to subsist it comes from the Cushingism error in the 1949 Letter.
 
This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. -Lumen Gentium 8
 
'although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.' Where are these elements of sanctification and truth outside the visible structure of the Catholic Church, with which someone is saved? Do we know of a Protestant or Orthodox Christian saved outside the visible structure of the Church? No. We do not know of any such person. However at Vatican Council II Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits assumed there is salvation outside the Church.Cushingism was the new theology.
Similarly we do not know any one saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church' (UR 3). This is a hypothetical case but since it was assumed in 1949 Boston that there is salvation outside the Church, this hypothetical passage got through in UR 3. The second part of the 1949 Letter was based on hypothetical cases being explicit and de facto known.
The same is true  with Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) or Nostra Aetate 2( a ray of that Truth) or LG 8 (elements of sanctification and truth) - all come from the error in the Boston Case.Hypothetical cases are assumed to physically ojective on earth.
 Related imageRelated imageRelated image
So now that we know the source of the error in Vatican Council II, lay Catholics, can affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.They can accept LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc as hypothetical and  known only to God. Since they are hypothetical  they are not relevant or exceptions to EENS.The magisterium had it wrong in Rome in 1949.
 
Also since the dogma says all need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church and there are no exceptions, we can assume that LG 16, UR 3 etc refer to those saved as such  with also the baptism of water.This is speculative.So it should not be a problem. We cannot know any one saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth', for example, with or without the baptism of water.
 
We have to recognise how an error was made in the 1949  Letter to the Archbishop of Boston.The Council Fathers did not notice it and they placed the mistake in Vatican Council II.This cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake nor contradict the pre-Council of Trent magisterium, which taught the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.
Now the contemporary magisterium has to be corrected when they use an irrationality to interpret Vatican Council II and then reject the traditional ecclesiology on exclusive salvation in the Church, based on the dogma EENS.
Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism.It is in agreement with Tradition. It is pro-Fr.Leonard Feeney, St. Francis Xavier, St. Robert Bellarmine and the other saints and popes, who held the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. Vatican Council II with Feeneyism ( there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS) does not contradict Tradition.
-Lionel Andrades
 

No comments: