PHYSICAL EXCEPTIONS FOR CARD.RATZINGER
But for Cardinal Ratzinger, there being salvation outside the Church, there were physical exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. He approved the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which suggested that the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, happened without the baptism of water and they were exceptions to all needing the physical baptism of water.So now there was not one known baptism but there were three known baptisms, three physical baptisms for Cardinal Ratzinger. They are water ( as before) but also desire and blood.
THERE IS NO 'PHYSICAL' BAPTISM OF DESIRE
THERE IS NO 'PHYSICAL' BAPTISM OF DESIRE
This is irrational since the baptism of desire for example, cannot be administered, it is not physical and it is unknown to us.So the traditional meaning of a Creed has been changed by using an irrational inference.
Like the Nicene Creed changed for Catholics,the Athanasian Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvaton has also been rejected with alleged known salvation outside the Church.
OFFICIAL HERESY
OFFICIAL HERESY
Cardinal Raztinger has been encouraging heresy in the Church with his irrational new theology based on known physical exceptions to all needing the baptism of water.In the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257) he says with reference to all needing the baptism of water for salvation that 'God is not limited to the Sacraments'.It is as if he would know of some exception to the necessity of the baptism of water that he mentioned it in this context. 1
The change in the Nicene Creed came with the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which mentions being saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.They should not have been mentioned in the 1949 Letter. Since there are no explicit cases in our reality and we cannot say that someone has been saved with the baptism of desire for example, with or without the baptism of water.
The original error was there in the Baltimore Catechism which assumes 'the desirethereof' ( Council of Trent) was a baptism like the baptism of water, and it had the same results. This was speculation. Since no one could have known this in reality or confirmed it. This would not be a physical case. So it would not be relevant to the subject, that is, the necessity of the baptism of water for all for salvation.
NO CORRECTION FROM CDF
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance was then mentioned in Vatican Council II, when it was something superflous.The error was not corrected by Cardinal Raztinger in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.Insread Cardinal Ratzinger uses this Cushingism theology in the magisterial documents like Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus and the CDF Notification on Fr.Jacques Dupuis s.j (2001).
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 MISTAKES
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 MISTAKES
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing (who is not in invincible ignorance, since those cases it is assumed refer to objective persons who will be saved and so are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire...
Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire...-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
HYPOTHETICAL CASES ARE CONSIDERED EXPLICIT IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949
'...the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.'
'...the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation' are known only to God , and if they ' can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.', we would not know of any such case. So it cannot be relevant or an exception to EENs. So why did they have to metion it in the Letter? Since they wrongly assumed these were objective cases.They were explicit exceptions for the magisterium.
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing. This is a reference to a hypothetical case so why is it mentioned here with reference to EENS ? We have here the beginning of 'a development of dogma' based on alleged known salvation outside the Church.Hypothetical cases are considered objectively known. Then it is inferred that these hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to EENS.
'However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire,...' So what if God accepts also an implicit desire ? It is an unknown case for us. So what connection does it have with EENS?.
'those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation...O.K this is theoretical speculation. A lot of goodwill.But what's it doing in this Letter? Is this not a confusion of what is invisible as being invisible, what is speculative as being objective ?
With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire...He reproves those who exclude defacto, known, objective cases of person saved by implicit desire? Why is implicit desire mentioned here when it has no connection with EENS since there are no physically known cases, for it to be an exception to EENS.2 -Lionel Andrades
1.
The excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre by the CDF Prefect, like that of Fr.Leonard Feeney by the Holy Office (CDF) in 1949, was an injustice.There was no known salvation outside the Church
2.
Chris Ferrara and the SSPX bishops use the irrationality of the Letter ( hypothetical-objective exceptions) to interpret Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of rupture http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/chris-ferrara-and-sspx-bishops-use.html
Card. Ratzinger interpreted Vatican Council II with an irrationality when a rational option was available .He then excommunicated Abp. Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops for not accepting this heretical version of the faith
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/card-ratzinger-interpreted-vatican.html
Archbishop Lefebvre was correct in rejecting Vatican Council II interpreted with the irrationality. May God bless him for that
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/archbishop-lefebvre-was-correct-in.html
_______________________________________________________
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment