Tuesday, June 7, 2016

Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made an objective mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II

In a previous blog post I have mentioned that the FSSP and SSPX  priests need to know that there is a mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office and Vatican Council II.
Both documents mention hypothetical cases and assume they are explicit.Then they conclude that these explicit cases are objective exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation ofextra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

In the Letter of the Holy Office 1949  the text in red type refer to hypothetical cases.However the Letter assumes they are explicit, objectively seen. This is the false premise.
Related image
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing 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.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

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 - Letter of the Holy Office 1949
 but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, 
Then follows the  irrational conclusion of the Letter.The dogma EENS is contradicted.It says that it is not always required to be incorporated into the Church actually as a member.This is a direct and clear negation of the dogma EENS.

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.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949 https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM

The FSSP/SSPX  priests use the same irrational premise to reach the same irrational conclusion.This was the initial mistake of Archbishop Lefebvre.
The same error is there in Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.
In the following passage from LG 14 the hypothetical passage (red) is placed along with the orthodox passage( blue) as if it is relevant or an exception.
14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communionHe is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart."(12*) All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.-Lumen Gentium 14
So you can affirm EENS and the passages in red would not be exceptions.
The FSSP/SSPX  priests cannot affirm EENS ( Feeneyite) since the passages in red are explicit for them and so are exceptions to EENS and the passages in blue.

Related image
Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made the error of assuming hypothetical cases are practical exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) .He then uses the same irrationality to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma EENS according to the 16th century missionries. Here he can be seen making this mistake.It is the interview with Edward Pentin for the National Catholic Register, in which he asks about the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Edward Pentin:
Do you, nevertheless, accept there’s been a weakening of the Church’s teaching because of this underlying confusion of terminology? One example sometimes cited is that the teaching of “no salvation outside the Church” seems to have become less prominent.
Cardinal Gerhard Muller:

That has been discussed, but here, too, there has been a development of all that was said in the Church, beginning with St. Cyprian, one of the Fathers of the Church, in the third century. Again, the perspective is different between then and now. In the third century, some Christian groups wanted to be outside the Church, and what St. Cyprian said is that without the Church a Christian cannot be saved. The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” He who is aware of the presence of Revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly — and not only in his conscience, in his heart — to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him.
But we cannot say that those who are inculpably ignorant of this truth are necessarily condemned for that reason. We must hope that those who do not belong to the Church through no fault of their own, but who follow the dictates of their God-given conscience, will be saved by Jesus Christ whom they do not yet know. Every person has the right to act according to his or her own conscience. However, if a Catholic says today, “I am going to put myself outside the Church,” we would have to respond that without the Church that person is in danger of losing salvation.
Therefore, we must always examine the context of these statements. The problem that many people have is that they are linking statements of doctrine from different centuries and different contexts — and this cannot be done rationally without a hermeneutic of interpretation. We need a theological hermeneutic for an authentic interpretation, but interpretation does not change the content of the teaching.
Why does Cardinal Muller mention the passages in red ? He considers the passages in red as being explicit.So they are exceptions to the dogma EENS for Cardinal Muller.However these are hypothetical references so how could they be exceptions to EENS? How could invisible cases be visible and so relevant to EENS?
This was the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. It is also the irrational reasoning by Cardinal Muller.He uses to it to interpret Vatican Council II.It is with the hermeneutic of rupture.
Lumen Gentium 14 refers to a hypothetical case for us. It is theoretical for us. However it would be explicit for him since LG 14 is an exception to EENS.
LG 14 is based on the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. It should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council II.The Council Fathers were not aware of the mistake in the 1949 Letter to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney. 
Cardinal Muller made an objective mistake here.1
Here is Archbishop Augustine di Noia making the same mistake.

Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, at Ecclesia Dei, Vatican uses  the irrational interpretation which is a break from Tradition. It can be seen from this interview he gave to the National Catholic Register.
Archbishop Di Noia said ' the Council did say that there were elements of grace in other religions'. He is implying that these cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Edward Pentin, National Catholic Register

How much is a perceived weakening of the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (no salvation outside the Church) a major part of the problem, as some traditionalists assert? Has today’s understanding of the dogma contradicted its earlier teaching?

Archbishop Augustine Di  Noia

I don’t know if you can blame this on the Council so much as the emergence of a theological trend that emphasized the possibility of salvation of non-Christians. But the Church has always affirmed this, and it has never denied it. …The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted. I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints.'


Have you noticed the irrational reasoning?

'a  theological trend that emphasized the possibility of salvation of non-Christians.' He is a referring to a hypothetical case. He  wrongly assumes it is objective. 

 But the Church has always affirmed this, and it has never denied it. …' He is referring to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. Before the Council of Trent the baptism of desire was seen as a hypothetical case and not objectively known. This is an objective mistake of Archbishop Augustine Di Noia.



Here is Bishop Bernard Fellay making the same mistake.

The Church of Christ is present and active as such, that is, as the unique ark of salvation, only where the Vicar of Christ is present. The Mystical Body of which he is the visible head is strictly identical to the Roman Catholic Church.
The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)
Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church,which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949. 3
The passages in red refer to  hypothetical cases. However for Bishop Fellay they are explicit, seen in the flesh, known in the present times.So they are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So for him these 'statements are irreconcilable'. 
The fault is there with his mixing up what is invisible as being visible.
The error is not there in Vatican Council II it self.He has been irrational.He has made an objective mistake. He has assumed that something which is hypothetical and theoretical is objective and visible.This is the same error made by Cardinal Gerhard Muller and Archbishop Augustine di Noia.-Lionel Andrades


Cardinal Muller has changed doctrine, supports the development of heresy


Archbishop Augustine Di Noia was using the false premise : here is the proof! http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/06/archbishop-augustine-di-noia-was-using.html

Bishop Fellay is a Cushingite with an irrational approach to LG 8 and UR 3. He mixes up what is invisible as being visible, implicit as explicit.He interprets Vatican Council II with an innovation and is not aware of it.

No comments: