Repost . We are in the same Church but the Polish bishops interpret the Nicene Creed, EENS, Vatican Council II and the Catechism differently
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
Like I said yesterday we are in the same Catholic Church but the two popes and all the bishops and cardinals interpret magisterial documents differently from me.
Yet I am not in a rupture with the past magisterium of the Church nor denying any magisterial document issued by any of the popes. Nobody can accuse me of rejecting the Nicene and Athanasius Creed, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church,Dominus Iesus etc.
And I admit that the two popes and all the cardinals and bishops would say that they too affirm all these mentioned magisterial documents.
I would agree that they do but point out that they interpret these documents with an irrational premise of which they are not aware of.I avoid the premise.
So their interpretation of Vatican Council II for example, is a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the magisterium and missionaries of the 16th century.For me there is no rupture.
Their interpretation of the Nicene Creed says ' I believe three or more known baptisms, desire, blood and invincible ignorance and they exclude the baptism of water'.For me it is 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and it is only one known baptism, the baptism of water'.So there is no rupture with the past for me.
They deny the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation.Since for them the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are examples of known salvation outside the Church. I do not deny the Athanasius Creed since BOD, BOB and I.I are invisible and unknown cases for me in 2017. So they cannot be objective examples of salvation outside the Church for me.Doctrinally and theologically I am not in a break with the past.
They use a false premise to interpret magisterial documents i.e invisible people are visible,unknown cases of the baptism of desire etc are known. I avoid this irrationality.Hypothetical cases for me are just hypothetical. Theoretical cases are not practically seen in the present times for me.
They violate the Principle of Non Contradiction by assuming people saved in Heaven are also visible on earth.For me if any one was saved with BOD, BOB and I.I with or without the baptism of water, it would be an unknown case. It would only be known to God.So it is a 'zero case' in our reality, as the apologist John Martignoni put it.
The baptism of desire is not an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus agrees Fr.Stefano Visintin osb, the Italian scientist-Rector of the Pontifical University of St Anselm, Rome.
Many priests who offer Holy Mass in the vernacular in Rome, whom I have contacted agree with me.
So I yesterday wrote the following.
Pope Francis and Pope Benedict are the popes.I accept this. But I affirm the dogma EENS in harmony with Vatican Council II. Vatican Council II is a not a rupture with the dogma EENS as it was known to the magisterium and missionaries of the 16th century for me. It is not so for them. I affirm the Nicene Creed but without the irrational premise. So I am not affirming the Nicene Creed like the two popes. Similarly I accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But unlike the two popes and most bishops and priests I donot interpret the Catechism (1994) with an irrational premise. This is not an issue of conservative and liberal,traditionalist and heretic.This is something overlooked in the Church. Even the Polish, Hungarian and African bishops are mistakenly interpreting Church documents with the premise which comes from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case. -Lionel Andrades MAY 22, 2017
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