Saturday, February 13, 2016

Tear the Vatican Document on the Jews and throw it in the dustbin says Chris Ferrara


Argument of the Month : Shea vs Ferrara Video

"How do you make sense of the Vatican Document(39:50) on the Jews ?", asks Chris Ferrara.
"You tear it up and throw it into the dust bin ". I agree with him. All good Catholics should reject it.
In the Chris Ferrara-Mark Shea debate in which Mark was at the receiving end from the onset, Ferrara says,'In December the Vatican approved a statement on Jewish Catholic dialogue and produced a statement The Gifts of God are Irrevocable.' It said, ' Catholics should not try to convert Jews '.
'There is no change in any teachings of the Church on salvation and this includes the salvation of the Jews. It's all a facade,' said the American Catholic lawyer. 'This very document declares in its opening passages that this is not a teaching of the magisterium.It expressly disclaims any authority whatsoever.
'So what's it doing on the Vatican website? It's there to confuse us.To create a false impression of a change where no change is possible.'
He then quotes Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 on outside the Church there is no salvation. He says,'It's a defined dogma of our Faith that the Jews are included within the mandate to make disciples of all nations.The Council of Florence says that Jews, heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life unless before death they are joined to the Catholic Church.'
So 'objectively speaking the Jews are under no less of an obligation than Catholics or any one else,  to do what Christ said.'He says it straight, ' Believe and be baptised or else be condemned.That is the objective reality of the situation...'
So 'how do you make sense of that Vatican statement? You tear it up and throw it in the garbage.'

But what about the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston which made was public by the archdiocese some three years after it was issued. Do we tear that up to ?
The Letter (1949) suggests there are known cases of Jews, or other non Catholics, who are saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water.The Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing accepted this. He approved an excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney who did not agree with him and allegedly called him a heretic.He also did not contradict the secular media in Boston saying that the Church has changed its teaching on the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation. Even during Vatican Council II, he did not lift the excommunication and his Cushingite footprints are all over the Council text.
Related image
He did not make the letter public when it was first issued and many suspect the second part of the Letter was tampered with. Theologically it contradicts the first part and contradicts the centuries old magisterium on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It was an innovation and a break with the past.
Are there known cases of persons saved without the baptism of water ? Can this be known to us human beings. The Letter suggests that this is physically possible otherwise how could there be exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church to avoid the fires of Hell.

Common sense tells us that there are no known cases.Objetively speaking we do not know of any Jew past or present, who has been saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water. There is no personally known case of a non Catholic saved outside the Church.
So the Letter of the Holy Office, approved by the Vatican (CDF/Holy Office) made an objective mistake.

Similarly what do we do about the Baltimore Catechism (1891), there are many good things in it ? Do we throw that out too? It placed the desire for the baptism of water of a hypothetical case of a catechuman who dies before receiving it, in the baptism section.It is called it 'a baptism'. It is suggested that this new baptism has the  same results as the baptism of water.It inferred that this 'baptism' of desire was like the baptism of water since it was known and repeatable.
No there is a difference.We cannot administer the baptism of desire like we can with the baptiusm of water and we do not know of any one saved with the baptism of desire as in faith we know a person is saved with the baptism of water.
So practically, the baptism of desire allegedy without the baptism of water, should not have been placed in the baptism section, since there are no known cases of someone saved without the baptism of water.
This was an innovation in the Church which the magisterium approved , as it has wrongly approved the recent theological document forced upon the Vatican by the influential Jewish Left which often supports things Satanic ( abortion, Sodom and Gomorrah, pornography...)
Related image
Christopher Ferrara though also uses the irrational premise ( there are known cases,physically visible, of non Catholics saved without the baptism of water and with the baptism of desire or blood or in invincible ignorance).So he concludes theologically that there is known salvation outside the Church and so Jews and other non Catholics, theologically, do not need to convert into the Church to avoid the fires of Hell.
He and Mark Shea use this same irrational reasoning to interpret Vatican Council II. Chris rejects the Council as a break with Tradition.Mark accepts the Council as a break with Tradition.
Since I avoid the false premise and conclusion the Council for me is not a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus( Council of Florence 1441) or the Syllabus of Errors on other religions and salvation and ecumenism and salvation.
-Lionel Andrades

Vatican Document on the Jews :Pope Francis and the Vatican are 'under seige and surrender', in submission to Satan's lobby

Irrational Cushingism theology in the Document on the Jews is also there in Redemptorist Missio and Dominus Iesus

Chris Ferrara unknowingly uses an irrational premise and supports magisterial heresy

No comments: