Sunday, May 1, 2016

Abp.Augustine Di Noia like Card. Burke uses subjectivism and known exceptions to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with EENS according to the 16th century missionaries


Comments from the blog Musings of a Pertinacious Papist : Just what the German hierarchy has been waiting for
 Pertinacious Papist said...
Related image
I remember hearing Fr. Augustin DiNoia speaking at the Aquinas-Luther Conference in North Carolina years ago and saying that Catholics had to re-think their understanding of doctrines like EENS in light of their experience of non-Catholics who were known to be virtual 'saints'. His response was not to dismiss EENS but in effect to re-interpret it in the way that V2 documents typically seem to.
Lionel:
In these comments ( on the blog Musings of a Pertinacious Papist)  I have mentioned that there are no known exceptions in the present times (2016) to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). We cannot meet or see any one saved without the baptism of water.

I have also mentioned that being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire, without the baptism of water, refers to hypothetical cases.They are accepted in theory, in principle. It is clear that these cases cannot be defacto known in personally.Defacto, only God can know them.

So we do not confuse what is hypothetical as being objective.Neither do we assume that every one does not need to formally enter the Church in 2016 for salvation,since there are  known exceptions in the baptism of desire etc.These cases are invisible and do not exist in our reality.So they cannot be exceptions to the traditional teachings on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

Liberal theologians over time however have assumed that the hypothetical case of the baptism of desire was a defacto exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.This can be read clearly in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. The Letter was critical of Fr. Leonard Feeney who refused to say there were known exceptions to the dogma EENS.
This irrational reasoning of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 has been affirmed by the International Theological Commission whose members include Archbishop Augustine Di Noia.
They use subjectivism, situation ethics and known exceptions to reject the dogma EENS as it was known in the 16th century.They also apply this subjectivism to the interpretation of Vatican Council II (LG 16 is visible and not invisible, it is objective and not hypothetical for  them).So their interpretation of Vatican Council II is different from mine. LG 16 refers to invisible cases for me. So it is not an exception to the dogma EENS according to the 16th century Jesuit missionaries.
Related imageRelated image
In an interview with Edward Pentin for the National Catholic Register1 Archbishop Augustine Di Noia indicated that he could judge when a Christian known to him would be going to Heaven.He was saying that he knew that this particular Christian was on the way to Heaven and would die without mortal sin on his soul.He could judge that in future too this Christian would not commit a moral, mortal sin. Also for him this Christian had not committed a mortal sin of faith.

Even though this impressive Christian friend of the Archbishop knew about Jesus and the Church and yet did not enter, Di Noia was sure he would make it to Heaven. Lumen Gentium 14 (those who know) indicates this non Catholic friend of Archbishop Di Noia was on the way to Hell.Yet this was not a factor in judging this Christian.

The Archbishop was also indicating that we humans can know of people who will go to Heaven even though they are outside the Church i.e they do not have Catholic Faith (AG 14).Catholic Faith includes the Sacraments and the faith and moral teachings of the Church.
Musings of a Pertinacious Papist
How could Archbishop Di Noia know all this, when we generally presume this would only be known to God ? How could he personally know that this person is an exception to the dogma EENS?

Similarly how can he identify that someone he knows has the 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) needed for salvation, outside the Church? Is this a charism of the Archbishop ?
Related imageRelated image
So like Cardinal Burke or Fr.Hans Kung,  who assume there are known exceptions to the dogma EENs , Archbishop Di Noia would probably also say that there known exceptions in moral theology.So he would have no problem with Amoris Laetitia(301).He is a conservative liberal and Cardinal Burke is a liberal traditionalist.

For both of them LG 8 refers to visible and not invisble cases, known instead of unknown cases in real life.

The traditional teaching on faith and morals has been changed by the CDF, through theology; the new theology. The new theology irrationally assumes subjective, hypothetical cases are objective, seen in the flesh exceptions to traditional teachings on faith and morals.

The mistake was clearly made in the 1949 Letter to the Archbishop of Boston.The same mistake of assuming hypothetical cases are explicit, was incorporated in Vatican Council II.

Related imageRelated image
MISTAKES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II 2
1.LG 14 says only those who know about Jesus and the Church and do not enter are on the way to Hell. In other words not every non Catholic.Since those who are in invincible ignorance are assumed to be known, explicit in real life. They are assumed to be known exceptions of persons saved outside the Church i.e without faith and baptism.
This is false since no one could have physically seen these exceptions and no Church document before the Baltimore Catechism suggests these cases are objectively known.
2.LG 8 ( elements of sanctification and truth), LG 16 ( invincible ignorance), UR 3 ( imperfect communion with the Church), NA 2 etc are ALL hypothetical cases.So they are not relevant or exceptions to the dogma EENS according to the 16th century Jesuit missionaries.So they should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council with reference to orthodox passages on salvation.
3.Similarly it was a mistake for Vatican Council II to mention those who would be saved with the desire for the baptism of water, which they could not receive in life or those who are saved in invincible ignorance.It was a mistake to mention this in LG 14 and AG 14 which have orthodox pasages saying all need faith and baptism. It was a mistake since invisible cases are not relevant or exceptions to all needing faith and baptism for salvation.
Related image
Zero cases of something are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus says the apologist John Martignoni.

It is with these objective mistakes in Vatican Council II , that the contemporary magisterium interprets the Council as a break with EENS. 
If Archbishop Augustine di Noia assumes hypothetical cases are only hypothetical cases LG 8, LG 16 etc would not contradict the 'rigorist interpretation' of EENS which is opposed by the Jewish Left who dictate what theology in the Catholic Church is acceptable to them and the CDF keeps silent.-Lionel Andrades

1

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

EDWARD PENTIN DID NOT ASK ARCHBISHOPS MULLER AND DI NOI HOW COULD INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE AND 'ELEMENTS OF GRACE' BE EXCEPTIONS TO EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/edward-pentin-did-not-ask-archbishops.html

BOTH ARCHBISHOP MULLER AND DI NOIA MADE A FACTUAL ERROR IN THEIR SEPARATE INTERVIEWS WITH THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/both-archbishop-muller-and-di-noia-made.html


Archbishop Augustine Di Noia says the Holy Spirit preserves the Church from error including the interpretation of Vatican Council II- we now know there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, which one is guided by the Holy Spirit ?




ARCHBISHOP AUGUSTINE DI NOIA MADE A FACTUAL ERROR IN THE ITC PAPER CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS 1997




IS THE HOLY SPIRIT SAYING LIKE ARCHBISHOP AUGUSTINE DI NOIA THAT LG 8, LG 16 ARE EXPLICITLY KNOWN AND ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA?



2.

There is an objective mistake in Vatican Council II. Based on this error Pope Benedict said the dogma EENS has 'developed': avoid the error and we are back to the old ecclesiology with Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/there-is-objective-mistake-in-vatican.html

Related image
The mistakes in Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/the-mistakes-in-vatican-council-ii.html