Appeal to Cardinals Text and Signatories revealed - Press Release from group spokesman
Thursday, July 28, 2016
Appeal to Cardinals: text revealed
In light of the appearance of the signatories and the text of the Appeal to the Cardinals online, the organisers of the appeal are issuing a press release, below, for immediate release.
The appeal and its covering letter can conveniently be seenhere.
I will be continuing to act as spokesman for the group, and will be happy to answer questions.
Dr Joseph Shaw
Press release – Publication of theological critique and accompanying letter sent to the cardinals and patriarchs
TheNational Catholic Reporter of Kansas City, Missouri, recently published, without authorisation, the names of the signatories of a letter to the College of Cardinals and Eastern Patriarchs; equally without authorisation,The Australian, an Australia-based newspaper, has recently published the full text of the letter and the accompanying document. The latter is a theological critique of the apostolic exhortationAmoris laetitia, and requested that the cardinals and patriarchs petition Pope Francis to definitively and finally condemn certain propositions. In order to protect the signatories and the critique from misrepresentation, the organisers of these documents wish to offer some further comment and explanation of them.
Lionel: As mentioned in this blog Eucharist and Mission the signatories of this appeal oppose the philosophical subjectivism in the moral theology of Amoris Laeitita besides other errors, yet use a philosophical subjectivism in interpreting salvation theology.
Secondly in salvation theology they contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction when they state every one needs to enter the Church but some do not. They are faithful to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (which says all need to enter the Church) and they are also faithful to dissent and irrationality.The irrationality suggests the baptism of desire etc refer to explicit cases in 2016 and they are personally known exceptions to the dogma EENS. They would have to be personally known to be exceptions even though these cases are theoretically in Heaven and are known only to God.
3)The signatories to this appeal maintain this irrational theology and are now ( correctly) calling attention to the non traditional theology and subjectivism in Amoris Laetitia.
4) For personal reasons and interests they do not want to make the correction in salvation theology and now for personal reasons they are not saying that the pope is in heresy, but are only conceding that the contents of Amoris Laetitia is heretical.
This is all double standards and doublespeak.
As explained in previous statements, the organisers did not make these documents public, since they are addressed to the Cardinals and Patriarchs, who would ideally have been allowed to consider them without the distraction of public controversy over the documents.
The critique is the work of a number of Catholic scholars who were concerned that Catholics might understand some passages ofAmoris laetitiaas contradicting the doctrine of the Catholic faith. The remedy for this danger is an authoritative and final statement by the Supreme Pontiff stating that these understandings cannot be held by Catholics, and that Amoris laetitia does not present them as magisterial teachings or require that they be believed. The college of cardinals has the function of advising the Pope. The patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic churches also have the right and responsibility to advise the Supreme Pontiff on this matter in virtue of the importance of their office. Accordingly a document was drafted setting forth the gravest dangers of the text of Amoris laetitia and sent to the cardinals and patriarchs, along with a letter requesting them to petition the Pope to condemn the errors at issue.
Lionel: Over a few years I have been appealing to Dr. Joseph Shaw1, Fr.Brian Harrison, John Lament and others to condemn the errors in the new Catholic salvation theology which is magisterial heresy. It is accepted by them and other Catholic traditionalists.There never has been a response. ________________
The dangers to the faith found in passages of Amoris laetitia, in light of the ways they can be understood, are indicated by the application of theological censures. Theological censures are terms that identify the precise character of a threat to faith and morals that is found in an assertion.
What about the theological censures in the new theology, the new ecclesiology, the new salvation theology which is responsible for the hermeneutic of rupture in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents?
The various censures used in the document refer either to the gravity of the error found in a statement, or to the harmful effects that are liable to result from it.
Lionel: Is it normal to assume hypothetical cases are not hypothetical and then to build a whole new irrational and non traditional theology upon it ? How can the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance be an exception or relevant to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus unless we are dealing with objective cases of the baptism of desire etc ? This is the theology accepted by Dr.Joseph Shaw, Fr.Brian Harrison, John Lamont and other signatories of the appeal.
The censures in the critique are purely doctrinal and not juridical in nature, as the signatories do not claim or possess the authority necessary to impose juridical censures.
Lionel: Where is the critiique when the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminister and the Bishops Conference of England and Wales on their website consider 'seeds of the Word'(AG 11) as not being a hypothetical case? For them 'AG 11, LG 16 etc is an exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
What about the University of Bristol's Prof. Gavin D'costa considering ' a ray of that truth which enlightens'(NA 2) as being an exception to the traditional ecclesiology on other religions? Where are these cases personally known in England for them to be exceptions? Yet there is no critique of the University of Bristol video.
They do not question the personal faith of Pope Francis or claim that he assents to the propositions censured.
Lionel: The pope also rejects
the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla
salus and the old ecclesiology.
This changes the Nicene Creed.
This too is first class heresy.
The pope has approved Amoris Laetitia.In Poland he has announced that some bishops in other countries may choose to give the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried.
This is shown by the purpose of the document, which is to obtain a condemnation of these propositions by the Pope. The censures are intended to advise the cardinals and patriarchs, and their authority comes from the Scriptural and magisterial texts that are cited to justify them. Censures of this kind may be assigned by any person in the Church who has the knowledge, role, and mission needed to teach concerning questions of faith and morals.
Lionel: Salvation theology has been changed officially. This is a faith issue.
The censures and the references given to justify them are based on the Catholic understanding of faith and divine revelation.
Lionel: The signatories understanding of
Catholic faith is that there are
physically known cases of the
baptism of desire etc in 2016. So these 'personally known
cases' are an exception to
the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla
salus as it was known
to the 16th century missionaries.
This was confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI in the Avvenire interview. He said that the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus was no more like it was known to the 16th century missionaries. There was a development with Vatican Council II. Explicit- for- us LG 16 and seen in the flesh cases of LG 8 and personally known cases mentioned in LG 14 were a development, with reference to exclusive salvation in the Church. Upon this new development is based the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology.
This is Catholic faith, Catholic salvation theology for the signatories.
According to this understanding, if a statement is proposed by the Church as requiring the assent of faith (the most authoritative level of teaching), that statement is not a human interpretation of a divine act or teaching, but is a statement made by God Himself.
Lionel: The Holy Spirit teaches that hypothetical cases (LG 16 etc) are personally known in 2016 to be relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known over centuries?
The Holy Spirit teaches that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as expressed in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949?
The Holy Spirit teaches that we humans can physically see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church and so there is salvation outside the Church?
Such statements are formulated using languages and concepts belonging to human cultures, and are taught by the Church in particular historical circumstances. But these languages, concepts, and circumstances do not in any way alter or distort the truths that God asserts. They are used by all-powerful divine providence to express precisely the meaning that God intends to communicate.
Lionel: The signatories can see people in Heaven who are saved without the baptism of water and these persons can also be seen on earth,and so they are exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation. This is the new salvation theology accepted by the signatories as God- -asserting truth.
It is the signatories’ earnest hope and prayer that the cardinals and patriarchs will speak out against the errors that their critique addresses, and that the Holy Father will authoritatively condemn these errors.
Lionel: Meanwhile the signatories will not condemn their own errors,that of the contemporary magisterium and the SSPX on salvation theology ?-Lionel Andrades
Joseph Shaw would not say that all need to formally enter the Church for salvation in Britain. This would be the old ecclesiology. Instead he would say that there are exceptions. This is the new ecclesiology.
Exclusivist ecclesiology? The new theology is based on being able to see the dead. Remove the premise, which is, "I can see the dead on earth" .We then have the old ecclesiology, the exclusivist ecclesiology. The ecclesiology of Vatican Council II is exclusivist. Since it affirms the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla s alus in Ad Gentes 7, which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.LG 16, LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 etc are not known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 or the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. We are left with the old ecclesiology. Who agrees with you?
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors