Friday, May 6, 2016

Theology decides

Musings of a Pertinacious Papist
Comments from the blog Musings of a Pertinacious Papist :What was Cardinal Schönborn thinking? 
Lionel. Cite just one ONE infallible teaching having to do with your visible/invisible obsession.

You can't and we all know you can't.

You have picked-up this...from sources other then the Magisterium (Prolly Diamon brothers). It is Feeneyism and it is fetid and prolly everyone knows why he was reconciled to the Church; it was for reasons purely out of compassion extended to a dying man and his personal opinions of theology have NOTHING to do with Catholic Tradition. NOTHING

Here are the teachings of the Extraordinary and Ordinary Magisterium interpreted with the visible/invisible perspective.
1.Extra ecclesiam nulla salus( dogma defined by three Church Councils/Infallible teaching).
2.Vatican Council II (Ordinary Magisterium).
3.De fide moral teachings on mortal sin.
4.Marriage annulments
Etc, etc.
Related image
These teachings of the Church are changed with a theology which confuses the visible/invisible distinction. Theology is the lens, it is the prism, through which we see something, a concept, a faith-teaching. It is like using different coloured lens to see an object.
Related imageRelated image
For example there is a different perspective of the Basilica of St. Peter if you are on a plane looking down at the Vatican or in a car driving in Rome.It is the same basilica but it is viewed differently. Similarly, it is the same Vatican Council II for example, but with two different perspectives.
Theology decides who is a Catholic, Protestant or something else.In the 1949 Fr.Leonard Feeney case in Boston, theology was changed in the Catholic Church.Similarly during the Reformation Martin Luther chose a new theology.
Pope Francis' exhortation Amoris Laetitia presents a new theology on morals in N.301. It is a theology whose foundation is subjectivism made objective.The invisible is judged to be visible.
Related image
You and I as Catholics may say that we accept the Nicene Creed but this is meaningless today. It is important to know what theology is being used. Since the Nicene Creed for me says 'I beleive in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin 'and it refers only to the baptism of water. For you it could be 'I believe in three or more known baptisms,for the forgiveness of sin,  and it exclude the baptism of water.They  are the baptisms of desire, blood , seeds of the Word, imperfect communion with the Church etc.'
You may say that you believe in the baptism of desire. But so what? You are only making an unclear statement. You have to clarify your theology.Are you saying like me that the baptism of desire refers to invisible cases and so it is not relevant or an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) as it was known in the 16th century? Of course not. You are not saying the same thing. For you the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma EENS according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. So for you the baptism of desire does refer to explicit cases.It would have to be an objective case for it to be an exception. This is your new theology.
You may say that you affirm the dogma EENS.But are you saying that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church and these cases are known to us, or do you affirm EENS as it was understood, by the 16th century missionaries ?
I would say that your theology, your 'Catholic' beliefs like those of many traditionalists ( and also the contemporary magisterium) is an innovation.It is irrational. It's non traditional.It is heretical.
May be it's something innocent on your part. You overlooked something important. You accepted what the liberal theologians taught. Since there was no correction or contradiction by the teaching authority of the Church; the magisterium,  you accepted the error uncritically.
The liberal theologians ( Rahner-Ratzinger) made the invisible/visible, implicit/explicit distinction. I am only pointing it out.
They obscured doctrine. They coloured it differently.They used a false lens.
They assumed that what is objective and known to God only is also objective and known to man on earth. This irrational reasoning is 'new'.This makes their 'new 'theology, new.
So they have changed the lens when looking at Vatican Council II. They say Lumen Gentium 16( invincible ignorance) is an exception to EENS.So implicitly they are telling you that LG 16 refers to visible cases in the present times (2016).There are visible cases of persons saved without the baptism of water.But we know that these persons are in Heaven. They cannot be visible for us.So they have confused what is invisible as being visible.
Related image
They cannot say that any one on earth whom they personally know will be saved without the baptism of water but instead with the baptism of desire or with 'elements of sanctification and truth', seeds of the Word etc.No human can make this claim. Yet the theologians have mixed up what is hypothetical as being objectively known.
For me LG 16 refers to invisible cases.So I have changed the lens.I cannot see anything in Vatican Council II contradicting EENS.
By using the visible/invisible distinction they (Rahner-Ratzinger and numerous others) make  changes with extra ecclesiam nulla salus,Vatican Council II, mortal sin and
marriage annulments.They are presented in a different light.It is a non traditional perspective.
Related image
For them:-
1. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been changed since there are visible cases of persons saved without the baptism of water.
2.Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma EENS since LG 16 etc refer to visible and not invisible cases.
3.Moral teachings on mortal sin have been changes since there are subjective factors which are objective indications for them.So it cannot be said that a person in manifest mortal sin is in mortal sin and on the way to Hell. It cannot be said as such any more since there are objectively known factors like ignorance etc.These factors are visible and judgeable enough to say that someone has Sanctifying Grace and will not be going to Hell.
4.Marriage annulments are possible since it can be assumed that there are known subjective factors which indicate the marriage, though a Sacrament, was not valid in the first place.The couples can judge and the priest or bishop can respect their conscience.So whom God has joined together in a Catholic marriage, they can put asunder with a huuman, subjective judgement. 
Related image
They have created a  new theology, a new lens, by confusing what is invisible as being  visible and then they have applied it to faith and moral teachings of the Church.
-Lionel Andrades

No comments: