Who among us can judge a circumstance in 2021 which is an exception to the norm ( faith and baptism ) ?
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE TO
ARCHBISHOP CUSHING OF BOSTON, 1949
An unfortunate controversy over the dictum: "Outside the Church there is no salvation" was the occasion of the
following letter. The letter, dated August 8, 1949, is important for the explanation it gives of the necessity of the Catholic
Church. The Church is necessary for salvation because such is the command of Christ and because the Church is a
necessary means for salvation. But since the Church is such a means only by divine institution, not by intrinsic necessity,
membership itself in the Church is not required of all men under all circumstances. (The following translation is made
from the Latin published in the American Ecclesiastical Review, CXXVII [October, 1952], 307-11.)
'membership itself in the Church is not required of all men under all circumstances.' Who knows of a particular case where or when in 2021 that membership in the Church is not required ? Who among us can judge a circumstance which is an exception to the norm ( faith and baptism ) ? -Lionel Andrades
DECEMBER 28, 2018
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which has an irrational premise and inference and contradicts the Principle of Non Contradiction is referenced in Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium 16 : Warren Goddard observes
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) which uses an irrational premise and inference to create a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) is referenced in Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium 16. It is (19) Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72 says Warren Goddard who writes on EENS.
The Letter has an objective mistake and violates Aristotles Principle of Non Contradiction and so could not be magisterial. The Holy Spirit cannot make a factual mistake.
The mysterious Letter which has many irregularities,pointed out by the communities Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St. Benedict Centers, assumed invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) were visible exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS, defined by three Church Councils.
So the Letter heretically concludes that to obtain salvation it is not always necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation.-Lionel Andrades Vatican II Documents Austin Flannery OP Lumen Gentium 16:“Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them (58) through the dictates of conscience.(59)”.
Note 58. The Council is careful to add that men unacquainted with the biblical revelation, and even those who have not arrived at explicit faith in God, may by the grace of Christ attain salvation if they sincerely follow the lights God gives them. In a footnote the council makes reference to the important 1949 letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop (now Cardinal) Cushing of Boston, which lucidly explained how according Catholic doctrine it can be possible for non-Catholics to attain salvation through the grace of God. Note 59. Cf. letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston: Denz. 3869-72.
Vatican II Documents Vatican Lumen Gentium 16:
“Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*)”.
Lay Catholics must reject the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office conclusion : expedient religious are teaching it in Catechism classes
SEPTEMBER 13, 2017
Lay Catholics must reject the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office conclusion : expedient religious are teaching it in Catechism classes
Lay Catholics should say no.They must not accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.It violates the Principle of Non Contradiction.It assumes invisible for us baptism of desire (BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are visible for us.This is not bad enough. It further assumes that these 'known' cases exclude the baptism of water and are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) even though we do not know or cannot know any such case in real life.The Letter heretically concludes that not every one needs to enter the Church Church for salvation.Today the two popes accept this. So do the priests. The lay people follow them. This irrationality is approved by the Jewish Left (Rabbi Rosen etc) and so from the Parish Priest to the two lving popes it is being taught in Catechism classes throughout the world. Even professors of philosophy know about this non Catholic irrationality.But they teach it to protect their 'career'.Priest-professors too.
Veronica O'Brien- Laywoman, Delegate of Legion of Mary for 20 years- Founded 800 Legions of Mary In the parishes, lay Catholics who have important secular jobs, allow the irrationality to be taught to their children, since like themselves, they do not want their children to affirm the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS. So the political Left in Italy, for example, allows the Benedictine communities to work and pray like St. Benedict taught but not to proclaim exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church as St. Benedict did.
Caption : I'm Married to God as a Consecrated Virgin — And My Life Is Pretty Normal Yes, I'm celibate. No, I'm not a nun. But those lay Catholics who want to proclaim the Truth clearly like St.Benedict, St. Francis of Assisi and the Apostles at the time of Jesus, must note that there is an objective mistake in the 1949-Letter, during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.There is a factual mistake.The same error in reasoning was transferred to Vatican Council II.It is being intentionally overlooked by the magisterium today. Even religious communities turn the other way.Good people are pretending that the doctrinal problem does not exist.
Consecrated virgin and school teacher marries Christ at cathedral...'I am married to Jesus': Consecrated virgin, 38, marries God in wedding ceremony
that attracts hundreds. High school teacher Jessica Haye They know that there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II and the expedient one is to accept the Council as a rupture with Tradition.For this to happen they have to accept the ecclesiology; the new theology of the 1949 Letter.Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong and the Archbishop was correct.
WITHOUT THE FALSE REASONING The interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false reasoning of the 1949 Letter has the Council as a continuity with Tradition and in harmony with the dogma EENS.There is no rupture with the missionaries and magisterium of the 16th century. Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct and the Archbishop was wrong.This is the interpretation of Vatican Council II lay Catholics must choose. Lay Catholics who want to live with integrity must affirm that outside the Church there is no known salvation and every one needs to be a visible member of the Church with 'faith and baptism' (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II) to avoid the fires of Hell ( Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441). It means all non Catholis in 2017 are on the way to Hell according to Vatican Council II and pre-Vatican Council II de fide teachings.So holding this position is magisterial and Catholic.It is there in the text interpreted without the false premise.
Raissa Maritain: Russian Jewish émigré to France and convert to Catholicism- lay woman- wife,
TELL THEM THAT YOU AFFIRM BOD, BOB AND I.I If the priest or nun says that you must also affirm BOD, BOB and I.I tell him or her that you do so.You affirm implicit and invisible for us BOD, BOB and I.I.This is common sense.Since BOD, BOB and I.I can only be hypothetical for us human beings.If any one was saved as such it would only be known to God.So when the popes and saints of the past were referring to BOD, BOB and I.I ,when they were asked about it, it was to a theoretical possibility, it was speculation with good will.It was understood that no one could know of any such case in real life. This was a given. So affirm hypothetical BOD, BOB and I.I.
Ade Bethune "When the Catholic Worker began. . .in 1933, one of our first visitors was Ade Bethune, then a young girl who was going to Cathedral High School here in New York City. She brought us a number of black and white drawings of the saints, all of them working. We were delighted with them. NO MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENT SAYS THAT WE MUST AFFIRM VISIBLE FOR US BOD, BOB AND I.I If the priest or nun says that the Church teaches visible for us BOD, BOB and I.I and even though it is a mistake we must be in step with the Church, tell him no magisterial document, including Vatican Council II, says we have to interpret BOD, BOB and I.I as being visible.Rome has to come back to the Faith.The inference is left to us since the magisterial text does not state we must affirm visible for us BOD, BOB and I.I. We choose rationality and honesty and not deception. Visible for us BOD, BOB and I.I is an irrational inference.It is a false choice.It contradicts the Principle of Non Contradiction.How can invisible people in Heaven be known exceptions to EENS on earth? How can we know of someone on earth, a friend or relative, who will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church but instead with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance? So reason and tradition is on the side of the Catholic lay man who discerns. Affirm Feeneyite EENS. Be in harmony with the magisterium of the 16th century.And also affirm BOD, BOB and I.I. It does not have to be either-or.Things couldn't be better.-Lionel Andrades
Those who accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make Vatican Council II a rupture with Tradition :popes can avoid this
SEPTEMBER 22, 2017
Those who accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make Vatican Council II a rupture with Tradition :popes can avoid this
E-mail correspondence
Thank you for this clear explanation. I just re-read the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office.. I do not find any affirmation in this Letter of known visible cases of Non-Catholics being saved outside of visible entry into the Catholic Church. Lionel: Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
This is a positive line it affirms traditional EENS and calls it an infallible statement.So far so good.
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member -Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 says it is always required that one be incorporated into the Church actually as a member to avoid the fires of Hell.
So then why does the Lettter say it is not always required that someone be incorporated into the Church actually as a member?
Why? Since for the Letter it is necessary that one have the desire for the baptism of water and this desire would be enough for salvation.
but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
So the desire for the baptism of water of an unknown catechumen has become an exception to the necessity of all needing to be incorporated into the Church actually as a member. The unknown case of someone being saved without the baptism of water has become a known case of someone saved outside the Church and this contradicts the dogma EENS. Someone who is invisible for us in real life is a visible exception to the teaching on all needing to be incorporated into the Church actually as a member. So a hypothetical is not a hypothetical case. A hypothetical case has to be interpreted as being an explicit case and then it is inferred that every one does not need to be incorporated into the Church as a member.
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.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
The 'infallible statement' says all need to enter the Church for salvation, all need to be incorporated into the Church but here the Letter suggests that only those who know and not those who are in ignorance. Not all in general. Why? SInce a person in invincible ignorance is assumed to be an exception to the infallible statement. He is assumed to be a person saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance, who is personally known to us. Only since he is a personally known and visilbe case he becomes an exception to the dogmatic teaching. So the new doctrine is only those who know and not every one in general. There are visible exceptions it is implied in the Letter, otherwise how could there be an exception to traditional EENS. An invisible person cannot be an exception. So the Letter is saying that there are physically visible and known cases of people saved outside the Church and hypothetical cases are not just hypothetical cases but actual exceptions to EENS. Since Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center would not accept this new Cushingite doctrine they are criticized in the Letter. So when I read the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office I find many inferences of allegedly known visible cases of non Non Catholics being saved outside of visible entry into the Catholic Church when I know that practically there can be no such case.If there was any such person he or she would be in Heaven and known only to God. ________________________________ The letter only lays out the conditions for the possibility of Non-Catholics being saved outside the Church. Lionel:
If it just did that it would be fine.But it re-interprets BOD, BOB and I.I as being exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church.It so boldly rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS.
__________________________
Those conditions by their very nature are invisible to us: namley, invincible ignorance and an implicit desire and longing to belong the Church which is animated by perfect charity.
Lionel.
Yes.And so I affirm Feeneyite EENS which you both do not.
I say every one needs to be incorporated into the Church as a member for salvation.
So Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the dogma EENS for me. Vatican Council II is Feeneyite for me.Is it the same for you?
___________________________________________
I hope Lionel can see that he's attributing to the 1949 Letter (and to us) something that neither the Letter nor we affirm.
Lionel:
I hope I have shown you the exact text where the Letter tells us that not every one needs to be incorporated into the Church as a member. This is magisterial heresy.
It changes the meaning of the Nicene Creed.It becomes 'I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins, desire, blood and invincible ignorance and they all exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.'
You also make Vatican Council II a rupture with Tradition by using this irrationality.-Lionel Andrades
Hilary White and Massimo Faggioli interpret the Catechism, Vatican Council II and Letter of the Holy Office with hypothetical cases not being hypothetical : so there is a rupture with Tradition (with graphics)
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 O 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.(This 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.( Again we have a theoretical and hypothetical reference. We do not know who is united to the Church only in desire and will be saved.) -Lionel Andrades
JANUARY 25, 2018
Traditionalists cannot tell Faggioli Vatican Council II can be interpreted in harmony with the past ecclesiology of the Church. This is unknown or unthinkable.
In Dominus Iesus Cardinal Ratzinger repeats mistakes of Redemptoris Missio :irrational philosophy creates non traditional theology
DECEMBER 24, 2016
In Dominus Iesus Cardinal Ratzinger repeats mistakes of Redemptoris Missio :irrational philosophy creates non traditional theology
Cardinal Ratzinger used the false premise and conclusion of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.TheLetterwas welcomed by ecclesiastical masonry.He discarded the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)as it was known in the 16th century.
With the irrational premise, Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) refers to a visible and not an invisible case.So it is an explicit exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS for him. The hypothetical case is assumed to be non hypothetical and so it a rejection of EENS. In this way Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition. It has,to use his term, the hermeneutic of rupture. If he chose to interpret LG 16 as being invisible instead of visible, then LG 16 would not contradict the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.Vatican Council II would not be a rupture with Tradition and the old ecclesiology. He would be interpreting the Council just like me. However he chose the irrational premise and conclusion, just like his friends Fr. Karl Rahner and Fr.Hans Kung. So when he wrote Redemptoris Missio he does not affirm the exclusivist ecclesiology of the 16th century but instead criticizes it.The same ambiguous passages of Redemptoris Missio which reject traditional ecclesiology are there in Dominus Iesus. It seems like a cut and paste job. In the following passage from Dominus Iesus 2, Cardinal Ratzinger does not say that all non Catholics need to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation.Sincehe has heretically rejected the dogma EENS with an irrational premise.With bad philosophy he has created a new and non traditional theology which was approved by his liberal friends like Fr. Karl Rahner.
In considering the values which these religions witness to and offer humanity, with an open and positive approach, the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on the relation of the Church to non-Christian religions states: “The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and teachings, which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men”. Continuing in this line of thought, the Church's proclamation of Jesus Christ, “the way, the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6), today also makes use of the practice of inter-religious dialogue. Such dialogue certainly does not replace, but rather accompanies the missio ad gentes, directed toward that “mystery of unity”, from which “it follows that all men and women who are saved share, though differently, in the same mystery of salvation in Jesus Christ through his Spirit”5 Inter-religious dialogue, which is part of the Church's evangelizing mission, requires an attitude of understanding and a relationship of mutual knowledge and reciprocal enrichment, in obedience to the truth and with respect for freedom.-Dominus Iesus 2
Again he continues to project Jesus Christ without the necessity of being a member of the Church for salvation.This is a new doctrine in the Church. Salvation without the necessity of 'faith and baptism' in the Catholic Church.This contradicts Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II. There is known salvation outside the Church in the new theology. So Fr. Karl Rahner s.j could posit the theory of the Anonymous Christian. This theory was defended by Cardinal Ratzinger.It was institutionalised in the Catholic Church.It is there in the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( 846,1257 etc)
4. The Church's constant missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, not only de facto but also de iure (or in principle). As a consequence, it is held that certain truths have been superseded; for example, the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, the nature of Christian faith as compared with that of belief in other religions, the inspired nature of the books of Sacred Scripture, the personal unity between the Eternal Word and Jesus of Nazareth, the unity of the economy of the Incarnate Word and the Holy Spirit, the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ, the universal salvific mediation of the Church, the inseparability — while recognizing the distinction — of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, and the Church, and the subsistence of the one Church of Christ in the Catholic Church. In Dominus Iesus 4 we have wonderful prose like that of Amoris Laeititia but it still misses out on something important. It is still Christology without the necessity of being a member of the Church for salvation. He has accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, which was an inter-office letter from one bishop to another, one cardinal to an archbishop. Then with this non magisterial Letter, which Fr.Rahner placed in the Denzinger, he has done away with the dogma defined by three Church Councils. He must be worth his weight in gold for the enemies of the Church, the one world-religion people.
5. As a remedy for this relativistic mentality, which is becoming ever more common, it is necessary above all to reassert the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ. In fact, it must be firmly believed that, in the mystery of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God, who is “the way, the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6), the full revelation of divine truth is given: “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him” (Mt 11:27); “No one has ever seen God; God the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has revealed him” (Jn 1:18); “For in Christ the whole fullness of divinity dwells in bodily form” (Col 2:9-10). It it relativism and indifferentism not to affirm the necessity of membership in the Catholic Churh for salvation. It is also heresy to put away a dogma defined by three Church Councils.In the 16th century this would be a reason to excommunicate someone. Instead he had Archbishop Lefebvre excommunicated for not affirming Vatican Council II ( with the premise) as a rupture with the dogma EENS and the rest of Tradition.He wanted the SSPX to accept his new theology.
IV. UNICITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH
16. The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5). Therefore, the fullness of Christ's salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27),47 which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18). And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single “whole Christ”. This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).
'the fullness of Christ's salvific mystery ' and 'a single “whole Christ”'is the new theology which replaces the teaching of Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57-Dominus Iesus 16
We do not know of any one saved “outside of her structure', we do not know specifically of any one saved outside the Church with 'many elements' which ' can be found of sanctification and truth”, this is the false premise.He assumes that there are such cases; known cases. Then he projects it as an exception to the old ecclesiocentrism. This is the new theology created withthe false philosophy.
We do not know of any one saved in the subsist in category.Yet for him it refers to concrete cases. For me Lumen Genttium 8,from where his citations are taken, only refers to invisible cases, hypotehtical possibilities known only to God.For Cardinal Ratzinger they are objective cases. This is his inference.It is the basis of his, and Rahner's, new theology. This cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit since it is based on objective error.The Holy Spirit cannot teach irrationality.The conclusion is heretical and it is made official in Dominus Iesus. _____________________
17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.-Dominus Iesus 17
According to the Council of Florence 1441 Orthodox Christians and Protestants are oriented to the fires of Hell unless they enter the Catholic Church.Yet by assuming there are visible cases of the baptism of desire there is known salvation outside the Church.So he hascreated the new ecumenism. According to the new ecumenism, since there are known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church the old ecclesiology has been rejected.This is reflected here in Dominus Iesus 17
______________________
18. The mission of the Church is “to proclaim and establish among all peoples the kingdom of Christ and of God, and she is on earth, the seed and the beginning of that kingdom”. On the one hand, the Church is “a sacrament — that is, sign and instrument of intimate union with God and of unity of the entire human race”. She is therefore the sign and instrument of the kingdom; she is called to announce and to establish the kingdom. On the other hand, the Church is the “people gathered by the unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”; she is therefore “the kingdom of Christ already present in mystery” and constitutes its seed and beginning. The kingdom of God, in fact, has an eschatological dimension: it is a reality present in time, but its full realization will arrive only with the completion or fulfilment of history.-Domijus Iesus 18
He is still repeating his new theology phrases from Redemptoris Missio and does not state that all non Catholics need to enter the Church as members to avoid the fires of Hell. _______________________
‘ecclesiocentrism' of the past -DM 19 Of course it was important to mention the 'ecclesiocentrism of the past' which has been rejected by ' the Magisterium'. This is the magisterium which he represents and promotes with the new theology.It is based on being able to physicaly see the deceased,who are now saved in Heaven without the baptism of water and Catholic faith. It refers to being able to know and meet people on earth, living, who are going to be saved without the faith and baptism in the Catholic Church and are examples of outside the Church there being salvation. ________________________________________
VI. THE CHURCH AND THE OTHER RELIGIONS IN RELATION TO SALVATION 20. From what has been stated above, some points follow that are necessary for theological reflection as it explores the relationship of the Church and the other religions to salvation. Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”. This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.
'and the necessity of the Church for this salvation” for himdoes notrefer to being incorporated into the Church as a member. He is referring to the new theology.There is known salvaton outside the Church for him. When I interpret Dominus Iesus I assume it refers to being incorporated into the Church as a member.I do not use the irrational premise. For me the new theology, the new ecclesiology is flawed.It is based on an irrational premise to create a heretical and non traditional conclusion.It has been accepted by the present ' magisterium'. It was enforced by Pope Benedict XVI. It cannot be magisterial since it is based on error and so cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.It is human error. We can continue to accept the good things said in Dominus Iesus and Redemptoris Mission and reject the errors.What is non traditional in salvation theology must be rejected. Similarly we need to interpret Vatican Council II without the new theology otherwise we could be accepting error and heresy as does the magisterium. -Lionel Andrades
Writer on the discovery of the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is interpreted with the false premise and the other without it. One is Magisterial and the other, the common one, is non Magisterial.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms.There can be two interpretations.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, non traditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional ?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission )
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment