Roberto de Mattei and the sensus fidei

The second dogma teaches that the Pope is infallible when he speaks “ex cathedra”, which is to say when in his function as Supreme Pastor, he defines that a doctrine in matters of faith or morals must be held by the entire Church.-Roberto Mattei

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/11/majestic-lecture-by-prof-roberto-de.html#more

Another Catholic priest has agreed that the baptism of desire is not physically visible or known. This is common sense. It is common knowledge.It is something obvious.It is not controversial.No theology here.

So since we cannot see or know any case of someone saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church and with the  baptism of water or in invincible ignorance in 2016 we cannot say that there are any exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

But the Letter 1949 has made this mistake.
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.

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.

The Letter says it is not always required to be incorporatd into the Church actually as a member while the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus( Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 says it is always required.

The new theology of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949  has been approved by the popes.It contradicts the popes and Church Councils which defined the dogma.

Even Roberto de Mattei accepts the new theology of the Letter 1949 and interprets Vatican Council II with it. So do the SSPX bishops.

 If the Pope oversteps these limits he deviates from the Catholic Faith. It is common doctrine that the Pope as a private doctor, may deviate from the Catholic Faith, falling into heresy[5]. The hypothesis of a heretic Pope is treated as [a]“scholion” in all theological treatises.-Roberto Mattei

 

The whole Church has deviated from the Catholic Faith including Roberto de Mattei on this issue. A few months back Pope Benedict XVI confirmed it.He said that extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries. It has been 'developed' with Vatican Council II and of course, the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston, who approved the new heresy in the Catholic Church.

 

The theological hypothesis of a heretical Pope does not contradict the dogma of infallibility, since the infallibility concerns the person of the Pope only when he acts ex cathedra. Further, also those who deny that the Pope can fall into heresy admit the possibility that he can express himself in an erroneous, misleading or scandalous manner. Furthermore, if the problem of a heretic Pope poses the problem of the loss of the Pontificate, the presence of a Pope fautor haeresim[9] poses equally grave theological problems.

 

With philosophical subjectivism salvation theology has been changed.A defined dogma has been discarded.This is heresy approved by the popes.

It has been replaced with an irrationality.The irrationality has also changed the meaning of the Nicene Creed.It now means 'I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins. They include the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance. All are known and visible baptisms in the present times like the baptism of water.'

The Church, in fact, is made up of a teaching part (docens) and a taught part (discens). It is only for the Church docens to teach revealed truth infallibly, whereas the Church docens receives and conserves this truth. 

 

The teaching part and the taught part of the Church are presently saying that the baptism of desire is physically visible.How do they infer this? Since there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Pope Benedict publically confirmed it in the Avvenire interview.

 

However, alongside the infallibility in teaching, there is also the infallibility in believing, since neither the corpus docendi, invested with the power of teaching the entire Church, nor the universality of the faithful in believing, can fall into error.

Everyone needs to be incorporated into the Church as a member for salvation( to avoid Hell) is the dogmatic teaching.So when the cardinals at the Holy Office in 1949 assumed that the baptism of desire  and being saved in invincible ignorance were relevant to the dogma it was an error .The error was placed in Vatican Council II. The error is still not noticed. Even Roberto de Mattei is not aware of it.

This error was then repeated in Vatican Council II.

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.-Lumen Gentium 14
 

The mistake in the Letter 1949 is repeated in Vatican Council II and the teaching and taught part of the Church are not aware of it.

 

All of the great modern councils have referred to the sensus fidei.

 

A dogma has been discarded. It is now official.

A new version of the dogma is presented in which hypothetical and imaginary cases are considered exceptions.

This is the new sensus fidei.It is accepted by Rome and also the traditionalists.

Even Roberto de Mattei will not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in public as it was held by the 16th century missionaries, to whom Pope Benedict XVI referred to.

Since for Roberto de Mattei like the two popes, the baptism of desire is not a hypothetical case! It is an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

 

Also the Second Vatican Council dealt with the sensus fidei or communis fidelium sensus.

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.-Lumen Gentium 14

This passage in itself it is not an error. It would be a reference to a hypothetical case, a possibility.
However it is mentioned here with reference to an orthodox passage, which supports the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

 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 and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. -Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II

So it is made relevant to the dogma on salvation. It infers that there is no more a hypothetical case but a known, explicit case.This was the error and confusion from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which is there in Vatican Council II and is not really part of the sensus fidei.

But Roberto de Mattei and the traditionalists have not noticed it.

It dramatically changes the interpretation of Vatican Council II. The Council once again has the true sensus fidei .We are back to the old ecclesiology.

There are priests who understand me. They know that this is the truth about Vatican Council II.But they are too afraid to affirm it in public.

 

Father Balić also calls the sensus fidei “Catholic common sense” or “Christian sense” (sensus christianus)

 

We have to remember what I said at the beginning.

Another Catholic priest has agreed that the baptism of desire is not physically visible or known. This is common sense. It is common knowledge.It is something obvious.It is not controversial.No theology here.

So since we cannot see or know any case of someone saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church and with the  baptism of water or in invincible ignorance in 2016 we cannot say that there are any exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

 

“Catholic common sense”, is the supernatural light which the Christian receives at Baptism and Confirmation. These sacraments infuse us with the capacity to adhere to the truths of the faith through supernatural instinct, even before that of theological reasoning.

Common sense  tells me and you that you cannot meet someone on the streets saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water.

No one can see people in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water.So where are the exceptions to the 16th century missionaries interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as said by Pope Benedict and as is being taught in the pontifical univerities in Rome?

 

 The sensus fidei can induce the faithful, in some cases, to refuse their assent to some ecclesiastical documents and place themselves, before the supreme authority, in a situation of resistance and apparent disobedience. The disobedience is only apparent since in these cases of legitimate resistance the evangelical principle that one must obey God rather than men prevails (Acts 5, 29)

 

The Letter of the Holy Office has an objective eror. It has a false premise and non traditional conclusion. It teaches heresy.

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.-Lumen Gentium 14

This passage in Lumen Gentium 14 is the conclusion of reasoning with a false premise.It is bad philosophy creating bad theology.We have a new doctrine!

It is not part of the sensus fidei.

 

The fact that the ordinary Magisterium cannot constantly teach a truth contrary to the faith, does not exclude that this same Magisterium may fall per accidens into error, when the teaching is circumscribed in space and time and is not expressed in an extraordinary manner.

An objective and factual mistake has been made.It has been accepted by 'the magisterium of persons', the pope and the Vatican Curia. It contradicts 'the magisterium of documents', including Vatican Council II, interpreted without the irrational premise and conclusion.

 It is evident from what we have said that the sensus fidei, like the act of faith for that matter, has a rational foundation. 

 

We cannot infer that since the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance is an exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus it is de facto visible in the present times.

 

When the sensus fidei points out a contrast between some expressions of the living Magisterium and the Tradition of the Church, its foundation is not the theological competence of the believer, but the good use of logic, illuminated by grace. In this sense, the principle of non-contradiction constitutes a fundamental criteria of verification of the act of faith as is the case in every intellectual act.

When the present magisteriuim of people infers that the baptism of desire is an exception to all needing to be incorporated into the Church for salvation they contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.Since an exception has to primarily exist in our reality for it to be an exception to all needing to be incorporated into the Church as members.

 Everything that appears irrational and contradictory repels the sensus fidei.

Adults cannot say that we can see ghosts who are living exceptions to a dogma defined by three Church Councils.If someone does not exist he cannot be an exception.

It will be the Blessed Virgin Mary, the destroyer of all heresies, Who will show us the way to continue professing the true faith and resist evil actively in ways that the situation will impose [on us].
Our Lady would make Roberto de Mattei and all of them to understand what I have written here and respond in  public, positively.I cannot do it.

-Lionel Andrades