Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Monastery of St. Benedict in Norcia, Italy interprets St.Thomas and Vatican Council II with an irrationality : bad theology

St.Thomas Aquinas affirmed the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus but this is not done by the Albert Magnus Center for Scholastic Studies and the Monastery of St. Benedict in Norcia, Italy. They will be having their fifth annual summer theology program in Norcia, Italy this July.Liberal Dominicans reject the rigorist interpretation of the dogma EENS according to St. Thomas Aquinas by interpreting being saved in invincible ignorance as referring to known cases.
So they say St. Thomas Aquinas mentions the man in the forest who will be saved in invincible ignorance and then infer that he said or suggested that the man in the forest is personally known.The saint was referring to a hypothetical case. He did not say that he personally knew of someone saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water. He does not say it but the Dominican theologians will infer that he said this. Then they will conclude that being saved in invincible ignorance refers to known cases ( for this to be an exception to EENS).Since there are these are known cases, there is salvation outside the Church. But we do not know of any such case and neither did the saint claim we personally knew of any such exception.
After the Baltimore Catechism (1891) was issued theologians began to re interpret St. Thomas Aquinas.This Catechism placed being saved with the baptism of desire and blood in the section on the Baptism of water and its effects. They were wrongly implying that being saved with the baptism of desire and blood, without the baptism of water, was possible and it was known in particular cases. Since it was known in particular cases, the effects would be the same as the baptism of water.
We now know that no one has seen a case of the baptism of desire or blood (without the baptism of water) and neither can the baptism of desire or blood be administered like the baptism of water. So in this sense they are not the same. Nor do we know any case of the results of the baptism of desire being the same as the baptism of water in Heaven. So this was all speculation.
However since the Baltimore Catechism inferred that these hypothetical cases were explicit, theologians began interpreting St. Thomas Aquinas' man in the forest in ignorance, as also being explicit and personally known. Then they would conclude that St.Thomas Aquinas said there were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the man in the forest was an exception.
But the text of St. Thomas Aquinas does not state this.He only mentions a hypothetical case and concludes that God would send a preacher to the man in the forest.So he too would receive the baptism of water before he dies.
This irrationality, which I call Cushingism, is the theology at Norcia  where they offer the Traditional Latin Mass.About a year back I wrote to Prior about this.He never replied.Fr.Cassian Folsom OSB is the Prior at the Monastery in Norcia.
Norcia is associated with the Aquinas Institute Magnus Center for Scholastic Studies and the Monastery of St. Benedict in Norcia, Italy who are using the liberal, irrational interpretation of St. Thomas Aquinas and so do not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as he did. They also interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism, so the Council is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis of Assisi , St.Dominic, St.Catherine of Siene...
-Lionel Andrades

http://www.albertusmagnuscss.org/p/summer-program-2016.html

No one is preaching membership in the Church is necessary for salvation even though Vatican Council II says this and this was part of the TLM ecclesiology for centuries.

Comments from Fr.Ray Blake's Blog

Future of the TLM Mass



Lionel:

The priests who offer the TLM are not allowed to affirm in public exlusive salvation in the Catholic Church. So the ecclesiology of the TLM today in England is not the same as in pre-Council of Trent times.

You Fr.Blake would not say that every one needs to formally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell and go to Heaven, and there are no exceptions. Yet this was how St.Robert Bellarmine and numerous saints offered the TLM. Vatican Council II says it is in AG 7 and LG 14.
So when bishops like even the good Athanasius Schneider want the TLM with political correctness it is a bad example for the young people.
No one is preaching membership in the Church,as being necessary for salvation, even though Vatican Council II says this and this was part of the TLM ecclesiology for centuries.
You also, have to look after No.1.



Bishop Schneider let us know what you believe on exclusive salvation. You are a shepherd.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/02/bishop-schneider-let-us-know-what-you.html

The basic error of the traditionalists and sedevacantists in the interpretation of Vatican Council II : the reason many have chosen sedevacantism is not being discussed
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/the-basic-error-of-traditionalists-and.html
____________________________________


Paul Hellyer said...

Perhaps the teaching is that membership of the Catholic Church is necessary to be Certain of salvation. Whereas outside the Church salvation is uncertain. Is this how the teaching should be understood?

Lionel:
The doctrnal teaching with the Traditional Latin Mass before the Council of Trent was that membership in the Catholic Church is necessary to be certain of salvation, since outside the Church there is no salvation.


If any pope or religious, uses an irrational premise and inference to interpret magisterial documents, including Vatican Council II, the conclusion has to be irrational, non traditional- and heretical.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/02/if-any-pope-or-religious-uses.html

If any pope or religious, uses an irrational premise and inference to interpret magisterial documents, including Vatican Council II, the conclusion has to be irrational, non traditional- and heretical.

Comment from the Vox Cantoris blog.
Mark Thomas
This is a good point.Can all of them be in heresy ? Can the magisterium be in heresy? And what is the precise heresy ?
I think in general the SSPX and conservative Catholics say that the present Church is a break with the past.Aside from the traditionalists, in the SSPX, even the traditionalists at the St.Benedict Center say Fr. leonard Feeney was de fide and the present understanding of the dogma is not traditional or correct. It is a rupture with the non-heretical teachings over the centuries before the Council of Trent.
So in a way it is not only me who is saying they are in heresy in the present times or that the present magisterium does not contradict the past magisterium.
Secondly, if any pope or religious, uses an irrational premise and inference to interpret magisterial documents, including Vatican Council II, the conclusion has to be irrational, non traditional- and heretical.
Bishop Bernard Fellay has on line interpreted Vatican Council II using the false premise and inference.You can read it on my blog.
Cardinal Walter Kaspar has done the same. I have pointed it out precisely on my blog. This is a factual error.
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J has done the same.
So if any one makes an objective mistake in the interpretation  the result has to be heretical.
It is something obvious. It can be checked on line.
The error is there in two papers of the International Theological Commission and the traditionalists at the SSPX and SBC have not noticed it, since they make the same error.
-Lionel Andrades
 
 
Mark Thomas said...
Catholic Mission, one of the problems that I have with your notion is that just about everybody within the Church espouses supposedly "heresy". His Holiness Pope Francis, Bishop Schneider, Bishop Fellay and the SSPX, FSSP, one Cardinal, bishop, and priest after another...everybody except you and a microscopic amount of Catholics espouse heresy. Is that realistic to believe?

Even during the Arian crisis, there was a bit more than a handful of orthodox Catholics. But based upon that which I have read on your blog, not even a handful of Catholics agree with your understanding of EENS.

I realize that you insist that your understanding of EENS is simply that of the Church's. But do Pope Francis, Bishop Schneider, Bishop Fellay (and SSPX), FSSP, ICK all misunderstand the Church's teaching on EENS? Every one of them espouses heresy? Every one?

Sorry, that doesn't seem rational to me.

Even more unbelievable to me is that I read on your blog today that even "the St. Benedict Centers, the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA, they interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism."

You mean, for example, that even Saint Benedict Abbey (first Abbot Right Reverend Gabriel Gibbs, requiescat in pace, and today, Right Reverend Xavier Connelly) espouses heresy? I am very family with the Abbey and have found it uplifting and orthodox.

I hope to continue to read your posts here and on your blog. But I find it difficult to believe that from Saint Benedict Abbey to the SSPX, to the FSSP, to the ICK, to Cardinal Burke, to Bishop Schneider, to Pope Francis, that all have fallen into heresy.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

There is a wonderful choice before Deacon Edward Schaefer

Deacon Edward Schaefer will not be able to get  a professor of theology who will interpret Vatican Council II  with Feeneyism instead of Cushingism.So the students will have to be taught  the usual confusion at the new traditional college. It is called the Collegium Sanctorum Angelorum.
They will have to reject Vatican Council II ( with Cushingism) since it will be a break with Tradition.This will create tension with the diocesan bishop.
Related image
Or, they will have to accept Vatican Council II ( with Cushingism).This will be a break with Tradition on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. This is a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors and the teachings of popes and saints.The irrational reasoning results in a rejection of the Nicene Creed's 'I believe in one baptism for the forgivesness of sin'. The new doctrine is 'I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sin and they may exclude or include the baptism of water'.
So what do we do?
There is a choice.
The choice is not there with the SSPX. Since they reject Vatican Council II  or they interpret it it with Cushingism and so the Council becomes a break with Tradition.
They could choose to have a professor of theology at the college, interpret  Vatican Council II in agreement with the exclusivist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).He will affirm the traditional ecclesiology and also show the diocesan bishop that 1) he accepts Vatican Council II  and 2) is not rejecting any of the traditional teachings.
To do this he simply has to interpret Church-texts without using an irrational premise and inference.It's simple.I call it the Feeneyite interpretation i.e  there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS, since there cannot be any known exception.
Cushingism is complicated and irrational.It uses a premise ( "I can physically see people in Heaven this year saved without the baptism of water") and an inference ( "these persons, dead and now in Heaven and visible to me, are explicit exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation.So there is salvation outside the Church").
With the Feeneyite interpretation, the college tells the bishop in Florida  that they affirm Vatican Council II in agreement with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.Neither is Vatican Council II or the dogma EENS rejected.
They also accept being saved with the baptism of desire, blood and in invincible ignorance.They are not rejected, since they are not explicit.So they are irrelevant to the dogma EENS.They are interpreted without the irrational premise and inference.
So the new traditional college affirms Vatican Council II, the dogma EENS, the baptism of desire, blood and being saved in invincible ignorance. They accept the Nicene Creed with ' I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin.' ( I believe in one known baptism.Being saved without the baptism of water and with the baptism of desire cannot be known).
I think this should be good enough for the bishop.
If the bishop  insists that the baptism of desire should be accepted as happening without the baptism of water, and is an example of salvation outside the Church, tell him that the college faculty like him and his Curia,  do not know of any such case and neither could any one in the past known of such an extra ordinary happening. Even the saints and popes do not claim that they could have known any person saved with the baptism of desire saved without the baptism of water. This though, is how it is wrongly inferred by theologians after the Baltimore Catechism was issued.
So in the present times (2016) as in the past, there are no known exceptions to EENS.(No one saw St. Emerentiana or St.Victor in heaven without the baptism of water).There are no known exceptions to the rule i.e all need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation.If the bishop wants to speculate, fine- but there cannot be a defacto known case in Church history.None of us can say that Dismas the Good Thief who died on the cross was not earlier baptised with water as a disciple of Jesus.
So the bottom line is that the bishop, like the one in the Fischer More College diocese, cannot say that the new traditional college is not accepting Vatican  Council II.
How the bishop wants to interpret Vatican Council II ( with Cushingism or Feeneyism) is  up to him. Within the college the students will be taught to interpret Vatican  Council II with Feeneyism. Since it is rational and traditional.The conclusion is non-heretical. It is in sync with the Nicene Creed, the Athanasius Creed  and the Syllabus of Errors.
There is a wonderful choice before Deacon Edward Schaefer.He is assisted  with the beauty and symmetry of the Faith. It is so precise and orderly,and if nothing new is added, all ends tie-up, everything is in synchrony.
-Lionel Andrades





At the 'New Traditional College' will the faculty interpret magisterial documents with Feeneyism or Cushingism ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/02/at-new-traditional-college-will-faculty.html

https://akacatholic.com/traditional-catholic-colleges/