Repost : There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II today and the magisterial one is a scandal : Catholic writers are not asking the Vatican the right questions.
OCTOBER 17, 2017
There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II today and the magisterial one is a scandal : Catholic writers are not asking the Vatican the right questions.
When Catholic journalists and writers meet Vatican officials, cardinals and bishops, and ask them about extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) they go there un-prepared.When Edward Pentin asked Cardinal Gerhard Muller about EENS, the cardinal referred to Lumen Gentium 14 as an exception.He meant EENS had really changed.When Pentin asked Archbishop Augustine di Noia about EENS, he referred to Lumen Gentium 8, as if it was an exception and so EENS was no more like it was before.Muller and Di Noia saw Vatican Council II as a rupture with EENS, ' a development', as Pope Benedict said in March 2016.
Unlike Muller and Di Noia, who were vague, Pope Benedict has clearly said that EENS was no more like it was in the 16th century.So for me it means at one time in history the magisterium was wrong.
For the three of them(Benedict,Muller, Di Noia) there were known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church.These areknown cases, explicit exceptions to EENS( they would have to be explicit otherwise they could not be exceptions),people saved in invincible ignorance(LG 14) or with elements of sanctification and truth (LG 8) found in other religions.This was also Edward Pentin's concept ofvisible for us LG 8, LG 16 etc, so he moved on to the next question without correcting Muller and Di Noia.
Recently Maike Hickson writing for the blog1Peter5 asked her sources about EENS and she got no answer.She too went un-prepared.
They could have quoted me saying,'I am a Catholic and I interpret Vatican Council II with LG 14, LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22,AG 11 etc as referring to hypothetical cases, invisible and unknown people in 2017.I have repeated this many times on my blog.For me these references in Vatican Council II are acceptable as theoretical cases which would only be known to God.So of course, with or without the baptism of water, they are not practical exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.Since they are physically invisible cases they are not explicit exceptions to the traditional teaching on there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and every one needs to be incorporated into the Church as a member for salvation.'
Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Di Noia made an objective mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS as did Pope Benedict in theAvvenire interview last year.
They violated the Principle of Non Contradiction by suggesting that there are known people in Heaven or on earth who have been saved outside the Church. This is false. There are no known people saved with the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and in invincible ignorance(I.I).There cannot be such cases for us human beings. There are no such known cases in the present times with or without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.To suggest that people in Heaven are exceptions on earth to the dogma EENS is irrational.It is creating a new theology with a false premise.So if there cannot be any known case where are the exceptions?
Also it must be noted that the ordinary means of salvation is ' faith and baptism'(AG 7) in the Catholic Church. It is not BOD, BOB and I.I.So how would Archbishop Di Noia know that a particular Anglican or Protestant would be going to Heaven even without Catholic faith? This person could be in mortal sin at the time of death and Di Noia would not know..So how would Di Noia know how Jesus would judge and why should he make an exception for any particular person. There is no way that we humans can judge and know who is an exception to the ordinary means of salvation.
Catholic writers note : there is a Catholic blogger who has written that unlike the two popes and the CDF cardinals and bishops, he affirms the Nicene Creed, the Athanasius Creed, Vatican Council II, Catechism of the Catholic Church and other magisterial documents, which he interprets with hypothetical cases just being hypotheticaland so they are not exceptions to the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.No one at the Vatican can correct him or show him where he is wrong.How can there be two interpretations of magiserial documents the Catholic writers must ask? Yet this is the reality in the Church today.
For me(Lionel) Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Di Noia's interpretation of Vatican Council II is irrational, non traditional and heretical.
Their error comes from the mistake made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 when the Archbishop of Boston and Rome were in heresy and not Fr. Leonard Feeney.Since invisible casesof BOD, BOB and I.I could not be visible exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.The 'magisterium' made a mistake. An injustice was done to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
Similarly an injustice was done to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre when Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger interpreted LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc as referring to visible and known peoplesaved outside the Church.So with this false premise(invisible people are visible, unknown cases are known in the present times) Vatican Council II became a rupture with EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.They excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre for not accepting this irrational version of the Council.
I repeat, there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II today and the magisterial one is a scandal.
There is doctrinal and theological connection between the Fr.Leonard Feeney case and that of Archbishop Lefebvre and Vatican Council II.The mistake of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is repeated in Vatican Council II and then the Catechism of the Catholic Church.Once we are aware of it we can avoid it and the interpretation of the magisterial documents becomes traditional and supports the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
But it is the old exclusivisit ecclesiolgy of the Church which is being denied by the Vatican and the CDF with the use of an irrational premise and no journalist or writer calls attention to it.-Lionel Andrades CARDINAL GERHARD MULLER : MISTAKES HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES AS BEING EXPLICIT IN THE PRESENT TIMES.
That has been discussed, but here, too, there has been a development of all that was said in the Church, beginning with St. Cyprian, one of the Fathers of the Church, in the third century. Again, the perspective is different between then and now. In the third century, some Christian groups wanted to be outside the Church, and what St. Cyprian said is that without the Church a Christian cannot be saved. The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “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.” He who is aware of the presence of Revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly — and not only in his conscience, in his heart — to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him.
But we cannot say that those who are inculpably ignorant of this truth are necessarily condemned for that reason.We must hope that those who do not belong to the Church through no fault of their own, but who follow the dictates of their God-given conscience, will be saved by Jesus Christ whom they do not yet know. Every person has the right to act according to his or her own conscience. - Cardinal Gerhard Muller (10/02/2012 ). Archbishop Gerhard Müller: 'The Church Is Not a Fortress', National Catholic Registerhttp://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-mueller-the-church-is-not-a-fortress/#ixzz3pwkg3Mur
ARCHBISHOP AUGUSTINE DO NOIA : ASSUMES WHAT IS KNOWN ONLY TO GOD CAN BE KNOWN AND JUDGED BY US HUMAN BEINGS.
I don’t know if you can blame this on the Council so much as the emergence of a theological trend that emphasized the possibility of salvation of non-Christians. But the Church has always affirmed this, and it has never denied it. …The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted. I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints.' - Archbishop Augustine di Noia ( 07/01/2012 ), Archbishop Di Noia, Ecclesia Dei and the Society of St. Pius X, National Catholic Register.
BISHOP BERNARD FELLAY ASSUMES THEORETICAL POSSIBILITIES KNOWN ONLY TO GOD ARE EXPLICIT IN THE PRESENT TIMES AND RELEVANT TO EENS
'The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)
Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church,which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949". -Bishop Bernard Fellay (April 13, 2014 ) Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82
OCTOBER 15, 2017 Dr.Maike Hickson does not get answers at the Vatican http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/drmaike-hickson-does-not-get-answers-at.html OCTOBER 13, 2017 Maike Hickson could ask Abp.Guido Pozzo and the SSPX the relevant questions : right to canonical status http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/maike-hickson-could-ask-abpguido-pozzo.html
OCTOBER 15, 2017
We are in the same Church but the Polish bishops interpret the Nicene Creed, EENS, Vatican Council II and the Catechism differently
Abp.Guido Pozzo cannot affirm the Syllabus of Errors nor the past exclusivist ecclesiology since Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of rupture for him with invisible cases being visible : SSPX priests must correct his error
Feeneyism:It is the old theology and philosophical reasoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.It affirms traditional EENS like the missionaries and magisterium of the 16th century.
Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS.There are exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church for salvation.It wronly assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.So it uses the false premise to reject the traditional interpretation of EENS.
Irrational premise: It is assuming hypothetical cases are not hypothetical but instead are objective cases in the present times.
It assumes invisible and unknown people are visible and unknown in our reality.
Baptism of Desire ( premise-free):It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it, the baptism of desire, is not relevant to the dogma EENS.
Baptism of Desire (with the false premise):It refers to the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved.A known person is assumed to be known.
Invincible Ignorance ( premise-free): This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is a hypothetical case it is not an exception to the dogma EENS.The false premise was not used.
Invincible Ignorance (with the false premise):This refers to the explicit case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is an exception to the dogma EENS it is assumed to be objectively known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational.
Council of Florence:One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exception.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was premise-free.
Liberal theologians:They re-interpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.They used the false premise.
Vatican Council II (with the premise):It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.
Vatican Council II ( premise-free):It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( premise-free),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston:(with the false premise)It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.It used the false premise.
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( premise-free). It means interpreting the first part of the the Letter without the false premise.Only the first part.It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.However the second part of the Letter contradicts the first part since it uses the false premise.
Letter of the Holy Office ( with the false premise).The second part of the Letter rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( with the premise) and being saved in invincible ignorance ( with the premise) as being exceptions to EENS (premise-free). In other words they are mistaken for being visible and known cases when they really are invisible for us.It wrongly assumes hypothetical cases are objectively visible and so they are exceptions to the first part of the Letter.
Baltimore Catechism:It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with the confusion.It can be interpreted premise-free.
Catechism of Pope X: It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.It can be interpreted as being premise -free. The references to invincible ignorance etc have to be interpreted without the false premise. So it does not contradict the dogma EENS( premise-free).
Nicene Creed ( with the premise): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means there are more than three known baptisms when the false premise is used in the interpretation. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc.This is an irrational but common understanding.
Nicene Creed ( premise-free): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.
New Theology: : (with the premise)It refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.It is of course based on the false premise.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( with the false premise).It refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto convert into the Church in the present times, since there are exceptions.The baptism of desire( with the premise), baptism of blood( with the premise) and being saved in invincible ignorance( with the premise) are exceptions to dogma as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( premise-free):It refers to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.Invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not visible exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Catholic Church for salvation.
Catechism of the Catholic Church( with the premise): CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction. Also CCC 848 is based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS( premise-free). So this is an interpretation of the Catechism with the false premise.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( premise-free): CCC 1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known cases in the present times of God not being not limited to the Sacraments(CCC1257).
When CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needing to formally enter the Church.It is a reference to a hypothetical case and not somebody known. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation.
Massimo Faggioli like Cardinal Raymond Burke does not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.) “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.) “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
Instead they assume hypothetical references in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 are non hypothetical and are examples of objective cases, known people saved outside the Church.So these documents become a rupture with Tradition when they really are not.
EXAMPLES OF THE HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE CATECHISM FOR THEM WHICH ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL. 1. 'God is not limited to the Sacraments'(CCC 1257) '2.all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body'(CC(CCC 846). 3. Those 'justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians'(CCC 818). 4. They are 'joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."(CCC 838). 5. 'the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims'(CCC 841).
EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II FOR THEM WHICH ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.
1. 'elements of sanctification and truth'in other religions(LG 8), 2..'good and holy' things in other religions(NA 2), 3..'a ray of that Truth which enlightens' all men(NA 2), 4.'imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3), 5.' people of good will in other religions'(GS 22), 6.' seeds of the Word'(AG 11), 7.'invincible ignorance'(LG 16), 8.'a good conscience'(LG 16) etc.
HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON WHICH FOR THEM ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.
1.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.(we do not know who this person is in particular so it is a hypothetical case.)
2.In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.(we do not know any one in particular as such so this is a hypothetical case.)
3.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.( if there is any such person he or she would only be known to God. So this passage is irrelevant to the dogma EENS. It cannot be an exception.Since it is a reference to an invisible person for us.)
4.However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.(it is a reference to an unknown catechumen)
5.For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.( and we do not know any in particular.So this is a theoretical and hypothetical reference) -Lionel Andrades