St.Thomas Aquinas spoke about the man in the forest in invincible ignorance he still held the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).Invncible ignorance was not an exception to the dogma. There are no known cases of being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) with or without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
Trad Cat Knight (Eric Gajewski) has to change his perspective here.
St. Thomas Aquinas affirmed exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and did not reject the unknown,theroretical case of the catechuman who had the desire for the baptism of water and was saved. He believed God would send a preacher to the man in the forest in invincible ignorance who had to be saved.
Trad Cat Knight has cited with reference to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).This was the wrong lead in thinking given by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.Like the present magisterium Eric has picked up the wrong reasoning.
The long list of the baptism of desire references in his blog post, are not exceptions to Feeneyite EENS, for me.
BOD is compatible with the strict interpretation of EENS.Since BOD for me is always implicit.
It was not like this for Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits at Vatican Council II.
BOD and I.I should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council II along with orthodox passages supporting EENS e.g all need faith and baptism for salvation -Ad Gentes 7.
Here are examples.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it." Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6)...
The passages in red should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council II.
Since the passages in red refer to hypothetical cases and they cannot be exceptions to the orhtodox passages in blue.
14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. 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(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. 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
BOD and I.I being mistaken for being objective and personally known(Letter of the Holy Office 1949) and are responsible for the passages in red being there in Vatican Council II. Once we identify them as being hypothetical and theoretical only, they are no more exceptions to the passages in blue. Then Vatican Council II is no more a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition.Since for there to be an exception to EENS for example in 2017, there would have to be a visible persons. A visible and known exception.Invisible people cannot be exceptions to EENS.
Due to the error in the 1949 Letter the traditionalists and sedevacantists too have chosen the wrong philosophical reasoning.Invisible people are visible for them.The same reasoning is there in Vatican Council II itself and so the Council emerges Christological but not directly Feeneyite.It is without the past ecclesiocentrism.The exclusivist ecclesiology has been replaced with a vague belief in Jesus which is common in the new ecumenism.
This was the false innovation in Vatican Council II which makes the Council, for Eric Gajiewski, a rupture with EENS and Tradition.
Now he has to change his perspective and the Council changes. Change your premise and the Church changes for you.He must see BOD and I.I as not being objective for humans.This is common sense.It is common knowledge. So then they cannot be exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
Then Vatican Council II ( LG 16,LG8, UR 3, NA 2,GS 22) will also refer to hypothetical cases like BOD and I.I.Vatican Council II is no more a problem. So there would be no reference in Vatican Council II to contradict Feeneyite EENS.The Council would actually be in harmony with Feeneyite EENS.
When Archbishop Lefebvre interpreted Vatican Council II he used the wrong reasoning.The wrong perspective.BOD was an exception to EENS for him. It is not for me.For me Vatican Council II is in harmony with EENS as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.
The Letter-1949 says every one does not need to be incorporated into the Church as a member while the text of the dogma (Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441) says the opposite.Wrong reasoning in Boston and Rome!
So since 1949 Catholics re-interpret St.Thomas Aquinas with the mistake in the Letter in 1949 and in Vatican Council II. Eric for example would assume that the man in the forest in invincible ignorance was a known case and so it would mean St.Thomas Aquinas rejected the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).So BOD would be an exception to the dogma for him .He would think he is being supported by St.Thomas Aquinas.This is false.There were no known cases of being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) during the time of St. Thomas Aquinas. He did not know any one saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.St. Thomas Aquinas has not stated otherwise.
I asked in a previous blog post who is irrational and in heresy-the Holy Office or Fr. Leonard Feeney? According to Chris Ferrara there are no practical exceptions to the dogma EENS.
I asked in a previous blog post who is irrational and in heresy-the Holy Office or Fr. Leonard Feeney? According to Chris Ferrara there are no practical exceptions to the dogma EENS.
According to John Martignoni zero cases of something cannot be exceptions to the dogma EENS.
According to Fr. Stefano Visintin osb,Vice Rector of the Pontifical University of St.Anselm, Rome, BOD and I.I are not exceptions to EENS.
So who was in heresy, Fr. Leonard Feeney or the Archbishop and Jesuits in Boston?
-Lionel Andrades
MARCH 25, 2017
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment