It seems as if Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger knew that invisible for us baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood (BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) never ever were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the magisterium in 1949 made a mistake.But he went ahead along with his friend Fr. Karl Rahner s.j and implemented the error in the Church.He adapted the 1983 Code of Canon Law to accomodate invisible for us baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) as being examples of salvation outside the Church and so he hints in Redemptoris Missio that 'the past ecclesiology' exists no more or there is a new interpretation of the past ecclesiology.
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) he proclaims a new theory which says all who are saved are saved though Jesus and the Church.He is trying to approve his invisible BOD, BOB and I.I as being relevant to the past ecclesiology and being exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) he could have corrected the mistake.He could have stated that unknown cases of BOD, BOB and I.I were not known exceptions to the dogma EENS.So Pope Pius XII and the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Cushing made an objective mistake by mixing up what was invisible as being invisible, someone in heaven as also being on earth and being saved outside the Church.They violated the Principle of Non Contradiction.Invisible people in Heaven are also visible on earth? Yes, they accepted this and now it is being enforced through the 1983 Canon Code of Canon Law.
Then he could have announced that there was a mistake in Vatican Council II.The Council should not have said in Lumen Gentium 14 that those who know and do not enter the Church are on the way to Hell without clarifying that all non Catholics in general need to enter the Church with no exceptions and being saved in invincible ignorance was not an exception.
Cardinal Ratzinger could have said that we do not know who 'knows' or 'does not know' and will be saved or not saved .So LG 14 does not contradict the 16th century missionaries understanding of EENS.Now when Edward Pentin asked Cardinal Muller about EENS in an interview for the National Catholic Register the former Prefect of the CDF said LG 14 was an exception.So EENS was no more like it was before.This was confirmed in March 2016 by Pope Benedict XVI in the interview with Avvenire. Cardinal Ratzinger did not announce that being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), seeds of the Word (AG 11) etc all refer to hypothetical cases.So they never ever were exceptions to the past ecclesiology and the centuries old interpretation of EENS.
It was a superficial interpretation of Vatican Council II which considered LG 14 16, LG 8, LG 14, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22, AG 11, AG 7, etc as exceptions to EENS.In other words they refer to known and visible cases.This is false and it is magisterial.
So if he wanted to he could have made the correction with reference to the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office(1949) and the repetition of that irrational form of reasoning at Vatican Council II (1965).
He could have announced that everyone needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church, with no known exceptions, to avoid the fires of Hell.The Orthodox Christians and the Protestants are outside the Church and so are the Jews,Hindus, Buddhists,Muslims, pagans and atheists.
Instead his friend Fr. Karl Rahner S.j placed the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in the Denzinger and he issued Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other 'magisterial' documents supporting the error in the Church.His friend Fr. Hans Kung S.j wrote books interpreting Vatican Council II as a rupture with EENS and he did not issue a correction.
Summorum Pontificum expects priests to offer the Tridentin Rite Mass without the past ecclesiology associated with the Traditional Latin Mass and the Mass in Greek at the time of St.Paul.The Code of Canon Law (1983) obliges priests to interpret BOD, BOB and I.I as referring to visible and known people saved outside the Church and so they are exceptions to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. It is important to note that priests can still affirm the 1983 Code of Canon Law and accept BOD, BOB and I.I but interpret them as being invisible and unknown.This is common sense. Also the Code does not state that they have to be interpreted as being visible and known. It leaves the inference to you.
Similarly afirm LG 14 but interpret 'those who know' and those who 'do not know' and who are saved or not saved as being known only to God.They are hypothetical and speculative cases for us. They cannot be anything else.So they are not exceptions to EENS as it was known to Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston, the Early Church Fathers and the Medieval Fathers of the Church.Undo the damage done by the ecclesiastics-Lionel Andrades
July 11, 2012
As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) he could have corrected the mistake.He could have stated that unknown cases of BOD, BOB and I.I were not known exceptions to the dogma EENS.So Pope Pius XII and the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Cushing made an objective mistake by mixing up what was invisible as being invisible, someone in heaven as also being on earth and being saved outside the Church.They violated the Principle of Non Contradiction.Invisible people in Heaven are also visible on earth? Yes, they accepted this and now it is being enforced through the 1983 Canon Code of Canon Law.
Then he could have announced that there was a mistake in Vatican Council II.The Council should not have said in Lumen Gentium 14 that those who know and do not enter the Church are on the way to Hell without clarifying that all non Catholics in general need to enter the Church with no exceptions and being saved in invincible ignorance was not an exception.
Cardinal Ratzinger could have said that we do not know who 'knows' or 'does not know' and will be saved or not saved .So LG 14 does not contradict the 16th century missionaries understanding of EENS.Now when Edward Pentin asked Cardinal Muller about EENS in an interview for the National Catholic Register the former Prefect of the CDF said LG 14 was an exception.So EENS was no more like it was before.This was confirmed in March 2016 by Pope Benedict XVI in the interview with Avvenire. Cardinal Ratzinger did not announce that being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), seeds of the Word (AG 11) etc all refer to hypothetical cases.So they never ever were exceptions to the past ecclesiology and the centuries old interpretation of EENS.
It was a superficial interpretation of Vatican Council II which considered LG 14 16, LG 8, LG 14, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22, AG 11, AG 7, etc as exceptions to EENS.In other words they refer to known and visible cases.This is false and it is magisterial.
So if he wanted to he could have made the correction with reference to the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office(1949) and the repetition of that irrational form of reasoning at Vatican Council II (1965).
He could have announced that everyone needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church, with no known exceptions, to avoid the fires of Hell.The Orthodox Christians and the Protestants are outside the Church and so are the Jews,Hindus, Buddhists,Muslims, pagans and atheists.
Instead his friend Fr. Karl Rahner S.j placed the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in the Denzinger and he issued Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other 'magisterial' documents supporting the error in the Church.His friend Fr. Hans Kung S.j wrote books interpreting Vatican Council II as a rupture with EENS and he did not issue a correction.
Summorum Pontificum expects priests to offer the Tridentin Rite Mass without the past ecclesiology associated with the Traditional Latin Mass and the Mass in Greek at the time of St.Paul.The Code of Canon Law (1983) obliges priests to interpret BOD, BOB and I.I as referring to visible and known people saved outside the Church and so they are exceptions to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. It is important to note that priests can still affirm the 1983 Code of Canon Law and accept BOD, BOB and I.I but interpret them as being invisible and unknown.This is common sense. Also the Code does not state that they have to be interpreted as being visible and known. It leaves the inference to you.
Similarly afirm LG 14 but interpret 'those who know' and those who 'do not know' and who are saved or not saved as being known only to God.They are hypothetical and speculative cases for us. They cannot be anything else.So they are not exceptions to EENS as it was known to Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston, the Early Church Fathers and the Medieval Fathers of the Church.Undo the damage done by the ecclesiastics-Lionel Andrades
July 11, 2012
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/cardinal-raymond-burke-says-1983-code.html
September 6, 2017
September 6, 2017
Christian Burial & Canon Law by Phineas
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/09/christian-burial-canon-law-by-phineas.html
September 6, 2014
September 6, 2014
Cardinal Muller must also begin dialogue with Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI :sedevacantism based on misunderstanding on doctrine
July 10, 2012
Fr.Leonard Feeney, Wikipedia and Vatican Council II
April 26, 2017
It seems as if Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger knew that invisible for us baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) never ever were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the magisterium in 1949 made a mistake but he went ahead along with his friend Fr. Karl Rahner s.j and implemented the error in the Church.He adapted the 1983 Code of Canon Law to accomodate invisible for us baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) as being examples of salvation outside the Church and so he hints in Redemptoris Missio that 'the past ecclesiology' exists no more or there is a new interpretation of the past ecclesiology.
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church(846) he proclaims a new theory which says all who are saved are saved though Jesus and the Church.He is trying to approve his invisible BOD, BOB and I.I as being relevant to the past ecclesiology and being exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) he could have corrected the mistake.He could have stated that unknown cases of BOD, BOB and I.I were not known exceptions to the dogma EENS.So Pope Pius XII and the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Cushing made an objective mistake by mixing up what was invisible as being invisible, someone in heaven as also being on earth and being saved outside the Church.They violated the Principle of Non Contradiction.Invisible people in Heaven are also visible on earth? Yes, they accepted this and now it is being enforced through the 1983 Canon Code of Canon Law.
Then he could have announced that there was a mistake in Vatican Council II.The Council should not have said in Lumen Gentium 14 that those who know and do not enter the Church are on the way to Hell without clarifying that all non Catholics in general need to enter the Church with no exceptions and being saved in invincible ignorance was not an exception.
Cardinal Ratzinger could have said that we do not know who 'knows' or does not 'know' and will be saved or not saved .So LG 14 does not contradict the 16th century missionaries understanding of EENS.Now when Edward Pentin asked Cardinal Muller about EENS in an interview for the National Catholic Register the former Prefect of the CDF said LG 14 was an exception.So EENS was no more like it was before.This was confirmed in March 2016 by Pope Benedict XVI in the interview with Avvenire.
Cardinal Ratzinger did not announce that being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3), seeds of the Word (AG 11) etc all refer to hypothetical cases.So they never ever were exceptions to the past ecclesiology and the centuries old interpretation of EENS.
It was a superficial interpretation of Vatican Council II which considered LG 14 16, LG 8, LG 14, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22, AG 11, AG 7, etc as exceptions to EENS in other words they refer to known and visible cases.This is false and it is magisterial.
July 11, 2012
September 6, 2017
September 6, 2014
Cardinal Muller must also begin dialogue with Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI :sedevacantism based on misunderstanding on doctrine
July 10, 2012
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment