Repost : Rome must come back to the Faith

December 22, 2017

'Rome must come back to the Faith' : it does not have to be either the baptism of desire or extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Pope Benedict's doctrinal hurdle for the Society of St Pius X(SSPX) has been removed.We are often reminded by Church Militant TV that Pope Benedict said that the SSPX problem is doctrinal and  so Michael Voris and his team consider the SSPX to be in schism, doctrinal schism.

For Pope Benedict, and the CMTV staff, it is either the baptism of desire or Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).It had to be one or the either.

This was the doctrinal error for Pope Benedict.He was forcing the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II(Cushingite) like the CMTV has done. If the SSPX accepted Vatican Council II without the either-or interpretation it probably would not be accepted.

Now  we know that it does not have to be either-or. It can be the baptism of desire along with EENS since BOD can only be accepted in theory, if a case really existed it would only be known to God. For us humans it is invisible. So it never was an exception to Feeneyite EENS.
We  have found the missing link.

The Holy Office 1949 made a mistake in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.Rahner and Ratzinger did not correct the mistake but enforced it upon the whole Church.The FSSP and Institute of Christ the King caved. They accepted Vatican Council II with invisible baptism of desire being considered visible exceptions to Feeneyite. The SSPX refused.

We now know that the doctrinal fault is not there with Vatican Council II, in the sense that it can be interpreted without the either-or condition.There is a choice.
The doctrinal puzzle has been solved.

When the traditionalists and conservative Catholics choose invisible for us BOD as being in harmony with Feeneyite EENS, and not an exception, then their interpretation of Vatican Council II, changes.The conclusion is traditional.

So doctrine is no more a hurdle for the SSPX  canonical recognition.

Vatican Council II is no more a problem also for the Franciscans of the Immaculate and the St. Benedict Centers for canonical recognition.

It would no more be a problem for the sedevacantists too since they can  still affirm the old ecclesiology  but now without rejecting Vatican Council II(Feeneyite).They must switch from Pope Benedict's Vatican Council II(Cushingite) to Vatican Council II, without the irrational invisible cases of BOD are visible exceptions to EENS, unknown cases of being saved in invincible ignorance are known people saved outside the Church.

So now we can put aside the bar set by Pope Benedict since it was based on a false premise and conclusion.Last March 2016 when Pope Benedict 'broke his silence' ,it was his last ditch attempt to save his new theology now exposed  in many reports on the Internet, which has got Catholics thinking.

The SSPX can now announce that, 'If Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) is the condition set by Pope Benedict and Pope Francis  we accept it.It is O.K.

'For us Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) is in harmony with the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church and the Syllabus of Errors.

'If the two popes reject Feeneyite EENS and replace it with Cushingite EENS we cannot accept  their Cushingite interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS.

'Catholic doctrine is precise.It is rational. There is no rupture between faith and reason.Cushingism is irrational and non traditional.'

So the SSPX, F.I and SBC could state,'We affirm Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) and EENS(Feeneyite) and we reject the Vatican Council II and EENS(Cushingite) of the two popes.

'Rome must come back to the Faith'.

-Lionel Andrades

DECEMBER 21, 2017

Franciscans of the Immaculate, SSPX, SBC can have their situation regularised : the doctrinal puzzle has been solved

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/franciscans-of-immaculate-sspx-sbc-can.html

DECEMBER 21, 2017

It does not have to be either the baptism of desire or extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Understand this line and then change your interpretation of Vatican Council II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/it-does-not-have-to-be-either-baptism_21.html

DECEMBER 21, 2017

It does not have to be either the baptism of desire or extra ecclesiam nulla salus : Just one Religious Superior is needed to understand and affirm this and we will have changed the Church

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/it-does-not-have-to-be-either-baptism_92.html

DECEMBER 21, 2017

It does not have to be either the baptism of desire or extra ecclesiam nulla salus : Just one Religious Superior is needed to understand and affirm this and we will have changed the Church

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/it-does-not-have-to-be-either-baptism_92.htmlhttps://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2017/12/rome-must-come-back-to-faith-it-does.html

 

 

 

Repost : Cardinal Kasper uses specious reasoning to further ecumenism and reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : Fruits can be seen at the Amazon Synod

December 22, 2017

Cardinal Kasper uses specious reasoning to further ecumenism and reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

by Cardinal Walter Kasper 

This strict identification of the church of Christ Jesus with the Catholic Church had been represented most recently in the encyclicals Mystici corporis (1943) and Humani generis (1950).

Lionel: Cardinal Walter Kasper acknowledges that the strict identification of the church of Jesus Christ only with the Catholic Church is there in Mystici Corporis etc.

_________________________

 But even according to Mystici corporis there are people who, although they have not yet been baptised, are subsumed under the Catholic Church because that is their express desire (DS 3921).

Lionel: Theoretically only! In reality there are no such people.

__________________________

 Therefore Pius XII had condemned an exclusive interpretation of the axiom “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” already in 1949...[10]

Lionel: The Letter of the Holy See to the Archbishop of Boston (1949), in: DS 3866-73, made the mistake of assuming theoretical cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance were real and known people saved outside the Church and so were exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). This was irrational and non traditional. It was a new doctrine.

So how could an exclusivist,strict  interpretation of the dogma( not axiom) extra ecclesiam nulla salus be condemned, when there are no practical exceptions, past or present to it. No one could have seen someone saved outside the Church in the past with the baptism of water. No one can also see any one saved in the present times without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

So this is theological deception and Pope Benedict had gone along with it, instead of correcting the error.

_____________________

Thus the Council is aware that there are outside of the Catholic Church forms of sanctification which even extend as far as martyrdom (LG, 15; UR, 4; UUS, 12, 83).

Lionel: Theoretically - in real life however there are no known cases of some saved outside the Church, there are no known cases of martyrdom outside the Church,without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.If there was it would only be known to God. Human beings within the Church can only speculate.




 One can speculate that St. Emerentiana or some other saint died with the baptism of blood but no one on earth can claim that it was without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

_________________________________

 The question of the salvation of non-Catholics is now no longer answered personally as in Mystici corporis on the basis of the subjective desire of single individuals, but institutionally on the basis of objective ecclesiology...

Lionel: How can there be an objective ecclesiology when there are no objective cases of non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church?

_____________________________

The Council went a decisive step further with the aid of the “subsistit in”. It wished to do justice to the fact that there are found outside of the Catholic Church not only individual Christians but also “elements of the church”,

Lionel: How can there be found outside the Catholic Church individual Christians who are saved? If there were any such case it would be unknown to us and known only to God.

_____________________________

 indeed churches and ecclesial communities which, although not in full communion, rightly belong to the one church and possess salvatory significance for their members (LG, 8, 15; UR, 3; UUS, 10-14). Thus the Council is aware that there are outside of the Catholic Church forms of sanctification which even extend as far as martyrdom (LG, 15; UR, 4; UUS, 12, 83). The question of the salvation of non-Catholics is now no longer answered personally as in Mystici corporis on the basis of the subjective desire of single individuals, but institutionally on the basis of objective ecclesiology.

Lionel: There is no objective case of a non Catholic saved outside the Church so there cannot be an objective exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

_______________________________

The Catholic Church continues to claim, as it always has, to be the true church of Christ Jesus, in which the entire fullness of the means of salvation are present (UR, 3; UUS, 14), but it now sees itself in a context of dialogue with the other churches and ecclesial communities.

Lionel : The Catholic Church still teaches in Vatican Council II(Ad Gentes 7) that all need faith and baptism for salvation.So the Church still affirms the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology of the past, which was rejected by Cardinal Kasper and his friend Cardinal Ratzinger.

_____________________________

 It does not propound any new doctrine but establishes a new outlook,

Lionel: Cardinal Kasper propounds a new doctrine.He is saying here, in a subtle way, that outside the Catholic Church there is known salvation and these persons are objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is false.He contradicts the Principle of Non Contradiction.

______________________________

 abandons triumphalism

Lionel: No it does not abandon the exclusivist ecclesiology of the past since there are no objective exceptions to it, past or present.So it has not abandoned what the Masons call 'triumphalism'.By rejecting triumphalism he is also saying that there can be inter-faith marriages which are not adultery and that non Catholics do not need to covert, since there is allegedly salvation outside the Church.

______________________________

 and formulates its traditional self-concept in a realistic, historically concrete – one could even say, humble – manner. -Cardinal Walter Kasper 1

1

III. “Subsistit in” – Expression of an Historically Concrete Ecclesiology

CONFERENCE ON THE 40th ANNIVERSARY OF THE PROMULGATION OF THE CONCILIAR DECREE "UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO"

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/card-kasper-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20041111_kasper-ecumenism_en.html

[10] Letter of the Holy See to the Archbishop of Boston (1949), in: DS 3866-73.

________________________________

OCTOBER 26, 2015

Cardinal Kaspar changed ecclesiology assuming B is an exception to A : he used an irrational model to interpret Vatican Council II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/cardinal-walter-kasper-said-in.html

The same false reasoning is there in the writings of Prof. Gavin D'Costa  a Catholic professor of theology at the University of Bristol, England.

1. On the University of Bristol video, Prof. Gavin D’Costa,a liberal Catholic professor of theology, assumed that ‘ a ray of Truth’ mentioned in Nostra Aetate 2 is explicit for us. So Nostra Aetate is considered an exception to the traditional teaching on salvation.

This is objectively wrong and is the same mistake made by the liberal Cardinal Walter Kasper in the text above.

2.In 2013 Bishop Fellay wrote the preface for the book written by the SSPX theologian Fr.Jean Marie Gleaze, Vaticano II- Un Dibattito Aperto (Editrice Ichthys). He recommended the book.

Fr.Jean Marie Glleize says in this book that in Mystici Corporis Pope Pius XII says ‘ in the exceptional way one can be saved outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church.’ How can there be an exceptional way to the dogmatic teaching? We do not know any explicit, visible case which could be an exception. If there are no known exceptions how can there be an exceptional way ?

Fr.Gleize is making the same error as the other priests and bishops of the SSPX in assuming that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, imperfect communion with the Church etc are visible exceptions. In faith we accept the baptism of desire as being implicit. It is a possibility. It is not an exception.It is hypothetical and not an exception to Feeneyite EENS.

Fr.Gleize is the professor of Ecclesiology at the SSPX seminary in Econe.It can be seen he is making the same error as Cardinal Kasper and Gavin D'Costa.
 
3.
The same reasoning is used by Massimo Faggioli to reject traditional documents of the Church. He assumes there is known salvation outside the Church and then reject the past exclusivist ecclesiology. So it is then a rejection of the past ecumenism of return and the Syllabus of Errors.

-Lionel Andrades

NOVEMBER 9, 2014

John Vennari, Cardinal Kaspar and so many others are misinterpreting these Church documents and then repeating the error in Vatican Council II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/john-vennari-cardinal-kaspar-and-so.html

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2017/12/cardinal-kasper-uses-specious-reasoning.html