Monday, September 26, 2016

Pope John Paul II, Hans Urs von Balthasar with the new theology used an irrational premise.It was contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction. Fr. Zuhlsdorf also interprets Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus with this irrationality

From the blog La Salette Journey

Father Zuhlsdorf: Authentic shepherd

Father Zuhlsdorf, over at WDTPRS, Just posted this:

"From a reader…


Is there a reasonable hope that all souls will be saved since it is a part of our liturgy?

No.  That is not reasonable.  It is wishful thinking.

Many* will be lost.

The feel good of translations and other aspects in our sacred -or not so sacred – worship have given many more than a rosy prospect.

There is no part of our authentic liturgy as Catholics which suggests that “all” will be saved.

It is time to sober up.

We can lose the gift of membership in the Kingdom of God which Christ opened for us.

We can and we do… when we sin.


Always nice to find a Catholic priest who isn't, well, insane.  Father Z is most sound of mine and an authentic shepherd.  He cares for souls.  Not all priests, however, are sane.  I do not say this to be uncharitable.  But remember, as Frank Shred reminded us, good theology and sanity go hand in hand - see here.
Fr.Z supports the new liberal theology of Rahner and Ratzinger .He is a Cushingite and not a Feeneyite.
He interprets Vatican Council II also with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism.
Cushingism is irrational and heretical.
Cushingism is based on an innovation, with the use of an irrational premise and conclusion.The error was there in the Baltimore Catechism and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. It was then incorporated in Vatican Council II.

Some years ago, in an article entitled "Can Jews, Muslims be saved," Fr. John Dietzen wrote, "Pope John Paul II reflects this Catholic attitude [that non-Catholics may be saved] in his moving and hopeful book, 'Crossing the Threshold of Hope.'
Yes in potential. Hypothetically. Dejure( in principle, in theory) but not de facto. There cannot be any known case. So there cannot be any exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. An exception would have to be personally known, for him or her, to be an exception.There are no known cases of non Catholics saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. Physically it is not possible and nor was it possible in 1891(Baltimore) or 1949(Boston).

 God wants to save all mankind in Jesus Christ, he writes. 
Yes salvation in potential is open to all. However to receive this salvation all need to be in the Church, all need to be visible members of the Church with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14).This was also the teaching in Dominus Iesus 20. So all Jews and Muslims in 2016 are oriented to Hell according to Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14) and there can be no known exception.

We don't know how God does all this, but we know Christ came into the world for all people and 'has his own ways of reaching them' (pp. 80-83) In other words, God has committed himself to work through baptism and the other sacraments, but he is not bound or limited by them."
The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus for centuries in the Church said that all need the Sacraments for salvation.If there is any one who does not need to enter the Church, since God is not limited to the Sacraments, we would not  know about it.
So we know according to magisterial documents, before and after Vatican Council II, that all non Catholics are on the way to Hell unless they enter the Church.

It is certainly true that non-Catholics who "..through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience..may achieve eternal salvation" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 847) and that although, "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism..he himself is not bound by his sacraments." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1257). I have often quoted these passages to refute the errors of the Feeneyites who insist that only baptized Roman Catholics may be saved.
The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 etc) says all need to enter the Church to avoid Hell.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake when it assumed that being saved in invincible ignorance referred to known cases.This is an error which was repeated in Vatican Council II( LG 14 etc).
I interpret LG 14 as referring to a hypothetical case.So it does not contradict the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.

But it does not follow that because "God came into the world for all people" and "wants to save all mankind in Jesus Christ" that all will be saved.
For you there are exceptions. So if there is one exception why cannot there be two and if there are two why not many or even all?

 Will some souls end up in hell? Fr. Dietzen concludes from his examination of Pope John Paul II's book that, "We just don't know enough about the mystery of God's saving plan to make such a judgment."
Pope John Paul II was a Cushingite.He did not also know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism( there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS).

 He then writes, "Perhaps you know of Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, one of the major Catholic theologians of the 20th century, a friend and close consultant to Pope John Paul II. He wrote much about the possibility of universal redemption, including the book, 'Dare We Hope: That All Men Be Saved,' in which he maintains it is our Christian call to pray and hope that all are reconciled with God. He was named a Cardinal but died before he could receive the red hat."
He was a Cushingite like the other liberal theologians. For him there was known salvation outside the Church.

What of this? Was Pope John Paul II in agreement with Hans Urs von Balthasar? The average Catholic, after reading Fr. Dietzen's article, would certainly get that impression.
They would both were using the new theology based on an irrational premise and conclusion.It was contrary to Principle of Non Contradiction. Fr. Zuhlsdorf also interprets Vatican Council II with this irrationality

 But they would be wrong. For Fr. Dietzen is not intellectually honest and only cites those passages of Pope John Paul II's book which seem to support this notion. A more careful examination of the Holy Father's book will serve to highlight Fr. Dietzen's dishonesty. For example, in a passage responding to the concern of "great thinkers in the Church," [including von Balthasar] who have been "disturbed" by the problem of hell, Pope John Paul II refers to Jesus' "unequivocal" words: "He speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment (cf. Mt 25: 46)."

Pope John Paul II concludes his remarks (which may be found on pages 185 to 186 of "Crossing the Threshold of Hope") with a series of rhetorical questions which indicate that some sinners will end in hell: "Is not God who is Love also ultimate Justice?," "Can He tolerate these terrible crimes," "Can they go unpunished?," "Isn't final punishment in some way necessary in order to reestablish moral equilibrium in the complex history of humanity?," "Is not hell in a certain sense the ultimate safeguard of man's moral conscience?"

Fr. Dietzen conveniently leaves these passages out of his article in an attempt to convince the faithful that Pope John Paul II and the Church are in agreement with Hans Urs von Balthasar.
However Pope John Paul II was using the Cushingite theology which assumed there are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So being saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water would be a defacto case for them. Reason tells us that it cannot be a defacto case.
So the question is that if it was not a defacto case then how could it be relevant or an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 approved by the magisterium?

 I have quoted [in another post on Fr. Dietzen] from Lumen Gentium, No. 48 of the Second Vatican Council which teaches clearly that some souls will end up in hell. And faithful Catholics will reflect very carefully on the fact that the Lord Himself speaks about the damned in a form that is grammatically future: "...and those who have done evil will go to the resurrection of condemnation" (Mt 25: 46). Does Fr. Dietzen consider Christ to be a liar? Does he believe Christ to be mistaken?
According to Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) most people are on the way to Hell since they die without 'faith and baptism', they are not incorporated into the Church as members with 'faith and baptism.

It's true that Pope John Paul II appointed von Balthasar a Cardinal. But when the Pope appoints someone a Cardinal, he does not authoritatively commend his thought.

I called upon Fr. Dietzen to issue an apology to his readers for his misleading article.  But he never delivered.
You have been opposing Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Are you ready to be called an Anti Semite, as you would call others? Are you willing to speak the truth?
You and all of us do not de facto know any exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and you are familiar with the text of the dogma.

The faithful have a right to Catholic teaching in its purity and integrity (Veritatis Splendor, No. 113). Father Dietzen and others who dare to suggest that all men will be saved fail to offer Catholic teaching in its purity and integrity.
What about those who teach that there are exceptions to all needing to enter the Church to avoid Hell?

*  How do we interpret "many"?  See here.
How would you know if it is 'many' and not 'most'?
-Lionel Andrades

No comments: