Friday, November 30, 2012

ARCHBISHOP MULLER AND HERESY


Traditionalist and progressive camps that see the Second Vatican Council as a “rupture” both espouse a “heretical interpretation” of the Council and its aims, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has said.


Archbishop Gerhard Müller said that what Pope Benedict XVI has termed “the hermeneutic of reform, of renewal in continuity” is the “only possible interpretation according to the principles of Catholic theology”.(1)
When Archbishop Muller assumes that we can see the dead saved in invincible ignorance who are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus then Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition. It contrdicts the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus of Errors.

Archbishop Müller, prefect of the CDF (Photo: CNS)
Archbishop Muller told Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register that invincible ignornance is an exception to the dogma. So for him Lumen Gentium 16(invincible ignorance) would contradict Tradition.This is heresy. He is denying a defined dogma, he claims there are known exceptions to the dogma and Tradition. He also suggests that the Council contradicts itself.
-Lionel Andrades

1.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/11/30/prefect-of-the-cdf-says-seeing-vatican-ii-as-a-rupture-is-heresy/

Oh, what a foolish question?!


I feel like dumbhead at times going to the Vatican offices and asking them if we can see the dead on earth.

Today morning Fr.Angelo at the Congregation for Catholic Education had that particular look of: ' What?? In general we humans cannot see the dead don't you know?! He could have lost his patience and said 'Stupid, I have more important things to do this morning'.He was glad when I was ready to go.

It's odd having to ask this question: 'Can we see the dead on earth who are saved.' And yet this is assumed in general  at the Universities and even at the CDF office.Since they are not aware of it I have to keep asking this question which seems silly.

Last night I was telling a religious Sister who was closing the Church after Mass that I had visited the Vatican office of the Congregation for the Liturgy.And that the priest said that Vatican Council II does not contradict itself nor the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus He said if  a priest was denying this in public it  was an issue for his bishop.

This elderly Sister was surprised.She asked how could a priest deny it.

So I asked her if she accepted what the priest at the Vatican Congregation office said.She said yes. She said we should all accept it.

I asked her if she accepted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. She said yes. I asked her if she had read the dogma. She said no.

I explained the text of the dogma.

She said this was true for a time in the past 1441 and it did not apply now!!!

We now have a more profound understanding of this issue,she said, in Vatican Council II.

I kept quiet and did not say anything and let her close the Church gate.

She is the Superior of a religious community relatively comfortable, with a large convent and with many elderly Sisters.So how could she emotionally accept this teaching? It is more prudent and politically safe to say something like ,'we can see the dead saved on earth who are exceptions to...'It sounds so profound!
-Lionel Andrades

IS FEENEYISM HERESY?



This is an opinion. Something implied from reading the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The Letter does not state Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy.


The liberal media says Fr.Leonard Feeney was in heresy for denying the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance which are exceptions to his 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.


1. Th secular media assumes we know cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire, who are known exceptions.Irrational.We cannot see the dead.So these cases are irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma.


2.If Fr.Leonard Feeney was in heresy then so are the Church Councils which defined the dogma, also the popes in the ordinary magisterium and numerous saints.


3.In the book The Bread of Life we read that a catechumen could have a genuine desire, an implicit desire which could lead to salvation.So in principle he acknowledges implicit desire.Whether it led to justification or salvation was another issue.He did not deny implicit desire, leading to salvation, followed with the baptism of water, in a manner known only to God.


He denied that implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance was an exception to the dogma. There were no exceptions.


Since implicit desire is known only to God it is not an exception to the dogmatic teaching.


So is 'Feeneyism' heresy ? No.Since Fr.Leonard Feeney affirmed the dogma.He did not deny implicit desire. He rejected any known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This was the traditional teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus for centuries.So how could Fr.Leonard Feeney be in heresy.


The Letter of the Holy Office says he was excommunicated for disobedience. The Letter mentions 'the dogma'. The text of the dogma does not cite any exceptions. -Lionel Andrades

We cannot see the dead who are saved- Congregation for Catholic Education,Vatican

There was light rain today morning and the banks along the river Tiber are not visible. The water is flowing fast and high.It was nice to visit the office of the Congregation for Catholic Education overlooking St.Peter's Square. It was warm inside.There was a view of St.Peter's Basilica from the room in which I waited briefly to meet a priest representing the Cardinal Prefect, His Eminence Zenon Grocholewski.


I introduced myself and said I had a question on the Catholic Faith with reference to Catholic Education and in particular the Pontifical Universities in Rome.

Fr.Angelo agreed with me. He said that we cannot see the dead saved. The dead are not visible to us.


I explained that since the dead saved are not visible to us Vatican Council II does not contradict itself. Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance and a good conscience) is not an exception to Ad Gentes 7 which says faith and baptism are needed for all for salvation.


He asked what had this to do with the Congregation for Catholic Education. Since we do not know these cases saved in invincible ignorance, implicit desire, seeds of the word etc these cases are not exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 and neither are they exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Yet this error is being taught in the Catholic seminaries and universities in Rome.

I mentioned cases of seminary professors at the Angelicum, Gregorian and other Universities assuming that we can see the dead saved and so these cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is the norm in the Catholic universities and not an exception.

Fr.Angelo said that I should take this issue to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This issue could not be dealt with by the Congregation for Catholic Education.He would agree with me he said that we cannot see the dead .


This issue is important for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith granting canoncial status to the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX).The SSPX accepts Vatican Council II as an historical event but rejects the interpretation of the Council with the premise of being able to see the dead.Since the universities, for example, assume that being saved in invincible ignorance etc are known to us in 2012 and are exceptions to the dogma Vatican Council II emerges as irrational, non traditional and modernist.This is the version being taught at the Catholic Universities. It is this interpretation of the Council that the SSPX is rejecting.


If the universities agreed with the Congregation for  Catholic Education that we cannot see the dead saved; implicit salvation is not explicit for us, then there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Vatican Council II. The Council emerges  traditional and affirms the SSPX position on other religions and ecumenism.The irrational premise is removed.The SSPX would be able to accept this interpretation of the Council.The CDF needs to also acknowledge that we cannot see the dead saved.
-Lionel Andrades
Vatican Council II does not contradict itself or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. We cannot see the dead.- Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments,Vatican

Thursday, November 29, 2012

THE SSPX HAS SAID IT ACCEPTS VATICAN COUNCIL II AS AN HISTORICAL EVENT THIS SHOULD BE ENOUGH FOR CANONICAL STATUS

The interpretation of Vatican Council II by many communities is based on an irrational premise of being able to see the dead.The SSPX cannot be expected to accept it.

When the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) says it rejects Vatican Council II they mean they reject the Council with the irrational premise.It's the use of the false premise which makes the Council modernist.

When the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) corrects the false premise there could be Catholic communities who could then reject Vatican Council II.They now accept it. So accepting one of two interpretations of Vatican Council II should not be made a criteria for granting the SSPX canonical status.

When the CDF announces that 'we cannot see the dead who are saved', Vatican Council II will be in agreement with the SSPX position on other religions.The Council would affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The CDF would then have changed the interpretation of the Council, an intepretation which it now wants the SSPX to accept.

The CDF must realize that the fault is not with the SSPX but with the premise used- a rational or an irrational one.

The media which criticizes the SSPX assumes we can see the dead and so Vatican Council II is a break from traditional teaching on other religions.The CDF has still to issue a correction regarding the Reuters and Washington Post reports in September 2012.

Eventually it will be clear that the premise creates the interpretation of Vatican Council II.So the CDF could allow the SSPX to enter the Church with full canonical status based on their accepting Vatican Council II as a historical event.-Lionel Andrades

Vatican Council II does not contradict itself or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. We cannot see the dead.- Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments,Vatican

Today morning I had an appointment at the office of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments,Vatican with an official representing Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera. It was raining at St.Peter's Square where work on the crib has begun.

Yesterday I visited the office and asked for 10 minutes to ask two questions on Catholic doctrine related to the liturgy.

Today we spoke in English.We agreed that we could not see the dead. The dead saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience, seeds of the Word, imperfect communion with the Church, elements of sanctification etc were known only to God. So these cases could not be cited as exceptions to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which says all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.He agreed that Vatican Council II does not contradict itself.Lumen Gentium 16 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7.Neither does Vatican Council II contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or, Tradition in general.

So is this an impediment for the priest offering Mass, if it is known and denied in public?

If the priest knowingly denies Vatican Council II(AG 7), the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Nicene Creed (I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins) then this was an issue for the local bishop. The Congregation leaves this issue for the bishop to decide he said.

He offers Mass daily, he said, and he knows that the dead are not visible and these cases are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and neither does Vatican Council II contradict itself or the dogma on exclusive salvation.

He said he wanted to restrict himself to the liturgy only, as instructed by Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and so did not want to talk about the doctrinal issue of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX).

The message was clear - a priest, bishop or cardinal who offers Holy Mass should not deny Vatican Council II (AG 7),the Nicene Creed and the thrice defined dogma with alleged explicit implicit salvation.

No Magisterial text states that the deceased saved are visible to us on earth or that they are defacto, explicit exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation. This is falsely implied by the media.

The clarification by this official is important for the present SSPX canonical issue.Since it means that Vatican Council II does not contradict the SSPX position on other religions and ecumenism.

The ecclesiology of Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric.

Vatican Council II is not a break from the past since implicit salvation is never explicit; there is no known salvation outside the church in 2012.

This is an issue based on universal reason (we cannot see the dead) and not on theology.-Lionel Andrades

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

WASHINGTON POST REPORT ON SSPX WRONG ON CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

There is a Washington Post report with the same factual errors on Vatican Council II and the SSPX and there is no clarification from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or the Ecclesia Dei.Explicit implicit salvation is not Catholic doctrine.


The report says
Pope tells SSPX traditionalists they must accept Second Vatican Council By Alessandro Speciale
Religion News Service, Oct 01, 2012 AP Published: September 27 ,2012

1.


The SSPX has said that they accept Vatican Council II as an historical event.Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre participated in it. At issue is the interpretation of Vatican Council II with the visible dead premise.


There is no known salvation outside the church, every on earth needs faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7). The text of Vatican Council II or the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 does not state that there is known salvation.It does not make this non traditional claim.Yet the media implies it does and Catholics assume that this is a fact and the Vatican does not issue a correction.


Implicit desire is part of the deposit of the faith, explicit implicit desire is not.The Washington Post correspondent assumes Vatican Council II mentions explicit exceptions to Tradition.


The Washington Post report says:

The SSPX rejects the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), including church acceptance of ecumenism and religious freedom, and its rejection of anti-Semitism
2.
Vatican Council II (AG 7) is in agreement with the Catholic Church's traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism. All need Catholic faith and the baptism of water for salvation(AG 7). So Vatican Council II agrees with the Society of St.Pius ( SSPX ) traditional position on this issue- unless one assumes there are known cases of the deceased saved. This is the error of the writer of the report. Since we cannot see the dead LG 16 (invincible ignorance/ good conscience), LG 8 ( elements of sanctification),AG 11(seeds of the word) etc,.do not contradict AG 7 or the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.So Vatican Council II has not changed the Catholics Church's teachings on other religions as the media reports.


This report is similar to the one written by the Reuters Religious Editor .He also assumes the dead who are saved are visible on earth.So he implies these deceased are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus i.e Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma and the Syllabus of Errors .

There was no clarification  from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Ecclesia Dei. It needed to be clarified that implicit salvation is never explicit for us .We cannot see the deceased on earth.Vatican Council II does not state that these cases are visible or that they contradict the salvation dogma.-Lionel Andrades

REUTERS MAKES AN OBJECTIVE MISTAKE ON CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AND ECCLESIA DEI/ CDF DO NOT CLARIFY


REUTERS MAKES FACTUAL,OBJECTIVE MISTAKE TOO

REUTERS MAKES AN OBJECTIVE MISTAKE ON CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AND ECCLESIA DEI/ CDF DO NOT CLARIFY

There are so many reports in the mainstream media which have factual errors in their reporting of Vatican Council II and especially with reference to the Society of St.Pius X. The Ecclesia Dei or the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or a Vatican media spokesman, have never issued a clarification.

1.
Reuters Religious Editor assumes the dead who are saved are visible on earth.So he implies these deceased are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus i.e Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma and the Syllabus of Errors .


There was no clarification to this report from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Ecclesia Dei. It needed to be clarified that implicit salvation is never explicit for us .We cannot see the deceased on earth.Vatican Council II does not state that these cases are visible or that they contradict the salvation dogma.


2.
Vatican Council II (AG 7) is in agreement with the Catholic Church's traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism. All need Catholic faith and the baptism of water for salvation. So Vatican Council II agrees with the Society of St.Pius ( SSPX ) traditional position on this issue,unless one assumes there are known cases of the deceased saved. Since we cannot see the dead LG 16 (invincible ignorance/ good conscience), LG 8 ( elements of sanctification),AG 11(seeds of the word) etc,.do not contradict AG 7 or the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.So Vatican Council II has not changed the Catholics Church's teachings on other religions as the media reports.


3.
The SSPX has said that they accept Vatican Council II as an historical event.Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre participated in it. At issue is the interpretation of Vatican Council II with the visible dead premise.There is no known salvation outside the church, every on earth needs faith and baptism for salvation. The text of  Vatican council II or the Letter of the Holy Ofice 1949 does not state that there is known salvation.It does not make this non traditional claim.Yet the media implies it does and Catholics assume that this is a fact and the Vatican does not issue a correction.
Implicit desire is part of the deposit of the faith, explicit implicit desire is not.


Being saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience,seeds of the word,imperfect communion with the church etc are accepted in principle only, as possibilities.Possibilities are not known reality in 2012.
-Lionel Andrades


REUTERS MAKES FACTUAL,OBJECTIVE MISTAKE TOO
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/reuters-makes-factualobjective-mistake.html#links

REUTERS MAKES FACTUAL,OBJECTIVE MISTAKE TOO

Tom Heneghan
Reuters assumes that the SSPX has rebelled against Vatican Council II since for Reuters correspondents the dead are visible to us on earth and so these cases saved, are explicit exceptions to Tradition. For Reuters those saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) or elements of sanctification(LG 8) etc are examples not of implicit salvation but explicit implicit salvation.This is an objective, factual error. We cannot see the dead on earth and Vatican Council II does not claim that we can.It has to be implied by Reuters and the other media.

Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor at Reuters,Paris, writes:

The Swiss-based SSPX broke away from Rome in 1988 in protest against the 1960s reforms that replaced Latin with local languages at Mass, forged reconciliation with Jews and admitted other religions may also offer a path to salvation-Sep 30, 2012 By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor Pope's bid to win over Catholic rebels seems at dead end (Additional reporting by Philip Pullella; Editing by Robin Pomeroy)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/30/us-pope-traditionalists-idUSBRE88T08S20120930


Vatican Council II admits that other religions may offer a path to salvation but does not claim that we personally know any such case or that they are defacto exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or the Syllabus of Errors. Reuters has to imply it. Tom Heneghan assumes that we can see the dead saved, who are  visble exceptions to Tradition.

He does not state that Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) 1  is in agreement with the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) position on other religions. The Council says all need faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7). While LG 16 does not state that invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire are explicit cases known to us or that they contrtadict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Heneghan has to assume all this. This is factually wrong and an irrationality.LG 16 only mentions the possibility of a non Catholic being saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience and we accept this in principle only. It is not defacto and known in personal cases.

So the SSPX are not rebels as he calls them. Vatican Council II, without the irrational premise of the dead saved being visible to us, is in accord with their traditional positions.

He writes:
Benedict insisted they must declare the Vatican Council and Church doctrine since then as valid Catholic teaching. Denying this has been a core principle of SSPX beliefs from the start
The SSPX has stated many times that they accept Vatican Council II as an historical event in which Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre participated. They do not deny that Vatican Council II happened.They deny the interpretation of Vatican Council II with the doctrinal error of being able to see the dead saved who are contradictions to Tradition. It is this false premise which makes Vatican Council II modernist and a break from the past.
-Lionel Andrades

1
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. -Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Feast of the Miraculous Medal today




At the Church of San Andrea della Fratte, Rome at the 7.30 Mass today morning Our Lady’s apparitions to St. Catherine Laboure were recalled. The Mass was celebrated at the Altar of the Miracle where Our Lady appeared to Alphonse Ratisbonne who was wearing a Miraculous Medal given to him by a friend.


During the Prayer Intentions it was prayed that the Church be an instrument of salvation for all people. This is Dominus Iesus 22.I wish they had also made a prayer intention based on Dominus Iesus 20.Salvation is open for all but to receive it one needs to respond and enter the Church. Dominus Iesus 22 is vague and can be interpreted as heresy. It could be interpreted as the Church is necessary for all and all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church and so non Catholics do not have to convert. They can be saved in general without believing in Jesus or entering the Church. Even if all who are saved are saved by Jesus and the Church, Jesus’ Mystical Body, it does not negate the dogma which says there is exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church and does not mention any exceptions.

All need to be visible members of the Church, with faith and baptism (AG 7). If someone objects and says that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for saying that every one needed to be a visible member of the Church for salvation, know this is an opinion. Something implied. The text of the Holy Office 1949 does not state this. One has to imply it. The text refers to disobedience and not  doctrine as the basis for the excommunication.


The priest at the next Mass at 8 a.m said   10 years after Our Lady appeared to Catherine Laboure she appeared to Alphonse Ratisbonne, at that very altar where he was offering Holy Mass this morning. This sanctuary of Our Lady was special, he said, for the Polish priest St. Maximillian Kolbe for whom the Miraculous Medal was part  of mission and teaching.


St. Maximillian Kolbe and Alphonse Ratisbonne, I thought, did not teach the new doctrine of the dead who are saved being visible to us all on earth. Today Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 are being interpreted with this irrationality of the visible- deceased.


It is generally held that we are able to see the dead saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience, implicit desire etc and so these known cases on earth are exceptions to St. Maximillian Kolbe’s understanding of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the 1930’s.


The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) today cannot be granted canonical status unless they accept this new doctrine in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office. The Archbishops at Ecclesia Dei and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,Vatican imply there is explicit implicit salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II.

 So all traditionalists are being forced to accept this and the SSPX could be penalized for being disobedient to this innovation.

The American under Secretary at the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei,Vatican Mons. Arthur Calkins F.I also holds on to this irrationality. He writes in praise of Alphonse Ratisbonne but cannot affirm the traditional dogma as did Ratisbonne who in a flash was shown the beauty of the Catholic Church and its necessity for the salvation for all people.-Lionel Andrades

http://www.marys-touch.com/Saints/medal/medal.htm

Ask Ecclesia Dei if the SSPX can accept Vatican Council II without the error of the dead being visible on earth



The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei in a letter, responding to queries by a priest, has stated that :


As long as the Society does not have canonical status in the Church,its ministers do not excercise legitimate ministries in the Church.There needs to be a distinction then,between the disciplinary level which deals with individuals as such,and the doctrinal level at which minsitry and instituion are involved.In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church...- Ecclesia Dei, Vatican City. November 6,2012 (posted on Rorate Caeli)
This is the time for the SSPX to respond. Doctrine is in their favour, if they only understand!

Ask Ecclesia Dei if Vatican Council II can be accepted as a continuation with Tradition, with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and the Syllabus of Errors. We do not know any case of a non Catholic being saved with implicit desire or in invincible ignorance for these cases to be relevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma on salvation.

Ask them if the SSPX can accept Vatican Council II without the error of the dead being visible on earth. So Lumen Gentium 16 on invincible ignorance and a good conscience, would not contradict the thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Nor would it contradict Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.

Vatican Council II would be in agreement doctrinally with the SSPX position on other religions and ecumenism.( Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, Ad Gentes 7, Catechism of the Catholic Church 845 and 846 etc).

Ask them if it is a new doctrine and not part of the deposit of the faith to hold the view, that there is explicit implicit salvation and- then  to claim that this is mentioned in the text of Vatican Council II.

If Ecclesia Dei can throw away the dogma because of allegedly known cases of the dead saved and visible to us, then they should not expect Catholics not to throw away Church teachings on, abortion  and contraception.
-Lionel Andrades

Traditionalists could simply affirm Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 according to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Traditionalists must inform Ecclesia Dei and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that they accept the Letter of the Holy Office and Vatican Council II in agreement with the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Error. They interpret them with the hermeneutic of continuity and not a break from the past

Dignitatis Humanae can be interpreted according to Tradition.Nostra Aetate and Unitatis Redintigratio also has a traditional interpretation.Catholics traditionalists are unfortunately still using an interpretation of the Letter and the Council based on implicit statements.


It is implied that both these Magisterial documents state there is known salvation outside the Church.They do not.


When the text of the Letter and Vatican Council II does not state that we know these cases why presume that we know them?Just because the media, secular and Catholic, make this error, Traditionalists do not need to follow.

Interpret all magisterial texts based on tradition and not what is assumed in error.


The apologist John Martigioni says, 'Zero cases of something are not exceptions'.There are zero cases of non Catholics saved who are visible to us  in 2012. So they cannot be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.


When these two documents do not claim that there are exceptions why should we presume that there are exceptions? Possibilities are not exceptions.


We can accept in principle the possibility of non Catholics being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire,seeds of the word, good conscience etc.The Letter of the Holy Office  and Vatican Council do not state that these cases are known, defacto, on earth. If it is implied that we can see these cases on earth it would be irrational.So we should not believe that the magisterium made this mistake.


When Denzinger quotes the Letter of the Holy Office ,no where is it said that there are exceptions to the salvation dogma.Denzinger does not make this error.


What is implied by many is not a fact.It is not Catholic doctrine and the SSPX and traditionalists should not be expected to accept it. A possibility is not a reality.A possibility is not a known exception.It is not an exception it is a 'zero case'.

Dignitatis Humanae(DH) refers to the liberty a non Catholic has to live his faith in a society with a secular Constitution.The text of DH recognizes that non Catholic religions are in error and Catholics have the right to proclaim their Faith with religious liberty.Morally we can still proclaim the Faith in a secular society - even if it becomes illegal to do so.


Similarly Nostra Aetate,Vatican Council II  does not state that non Catholic religions are equal paths to salvation or that the members of these religions are saved in general.The possibility of salvation among non Catholics is not a known reality in 2012. So it does not contradict the dogma which says all need to convert into the Church for salvation .(See also Ad Gentes 7,Dominus Iesus 20,CCC845 etc).

Similarly when Unitatis Redintigratio mentions those in imperfect communion with the Church we cannot presume to know these cases in the present times,for them to be exceptions to Tradition.


Traditionalists can affirm the Letter of the Holy Office in accord with Tradition. The Letter could be saying that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience or for heresy. Choose one. If he was excommunicated for heresy and doctrine then the Letter made an objective mistake. It is a fact that the dead are not visible. We cannot see someone saved with implicit desire etc.


There cannot be a new Catholic teaching based on what is assumed and not mentioned in magisterial documents.


The traditionalist understanding of the Letter of the Holy Office and Vatican Council II is based on non-facts, irrationality and assuming.Vatican Council II is really traditional.


So Traditionalists must inform Ecclesia Dei and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that they accept the Letter of the Holy Office and Vatican Council II in agreement with the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Error. They interpret them with the hermeneutic of continuity and not a break from the past.-Lionel Andrades

Photos from the websites of the Francscan Friars of the Immaculate, CMRI and Institute of Christ the King.

Monday, November 26, 2012

In Heaven there will be no body but Catholics-Michael Voris

In Heaven there will be no body but Catholics. I did not say that only Catholics go to Heaven.-Michael Voris(27:22)



Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae (CMRI) assume the baptism of desire and blood are visible and explicit for us

Sedevacantists Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae (CMRI) have posted a list of  quotations on the baptism of desire and blood but none of them mention that these cases are known to us in the present times  or that they are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.photo of Bishop Mark Pivarunas

The CMRI imply that these cases are known to us and so they assume that Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma on salvation and Tradition.
-L.A.


Baptism of Blood and of Desire

From the teachings of the Popes, the Council of Trent, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Roman Martyrology, the Fathers, Doctors and Theologians of the Church

1. COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1563)
Canons on the Sacraments in General (Canon 4):

“If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justiflcation; let him be anathema.”

Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4):

“In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the Sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the layer of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5).”

2. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI (1691-1787)

Moral Theology (Bk. 6):

“But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind␅ [flaminis] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind [flamen]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”

3. 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW On Ecclesiastical Burial (Canon 1239. 2)

“Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.” — The Sacred Canons
by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.

Commentary on the Code:
“The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of desire.”

4. POPE INNOCENT III

Apostolicam:

To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where among other things it is written, “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.” Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Denzinger 388).

Debitum pastoralis officii, August 28, 1206:

You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: “Go baptize all nations in the name etc.” (cf. Matt. 28:19), the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed off to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Denzinger 413).

5. POPE ST. PIUS V (1566-1572)
Ex omnibus afflictionibus, October 1, 1567
Condemned the following erroneous propositions of Michael du Bay:

•Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a “pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned” (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.

•That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.

•A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.

6. ST. AMBROSE
“I hear you express grief because he [Valentinian] did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is there in us except the will and petition? But he had long desired to be initiated... and expressed his intention to be baptized... Surely, he received [it] because he asked [for it].”

7. ST. AUGUSTINE, City of God
“I do not hesitate to place the Catholic catechumen, who is burning with the love of God, before the baptized heretic... The centurion Cornelius, before Baptism, was better than Simon [Magus], who had been baptized. For Cornelius, even before Baptism, was filled with the Holy Ghost, while Simon, after Baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit” (De Bapt. C. Donat., IV 21).

8. ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

Summa, Article 1, Part III, Q. 68:

“I answer that, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.

“Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not yet tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: ‘I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the graces he prayed for.’”

9. ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE, Doctor of the Church (1542-1621)

Liber II, Caput XXX:

“Boni Catehecumeni sunt de Ecclesia, interna unione tantum, non autem externa” (Good catechumens are of the Church, by internal union only, not however, by external union).

10. Roman Martyrology
January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr, who was stoned by the heathen while still a catechumen, when she was praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, whose foster-sister she was.

April 12: At Braga, in Portugal, St. Victor, Martyr, who, while still yet a catechumen, refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy, and so after many torments, he merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut off.

11. POPE PIUS IX (1846-1878) — Singulari Quadam, 1854:
174. “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is (see John 3:2) all we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice.”

Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863):
“...We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men, if they are prepare to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.”

12. POPE PIUS XII (1939-1958) — Mystical Body of Christ (June 29, 1943):
“As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible organization of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly... For even though unsuspectingly they are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer in desire and resolution, they still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can only enjoy in the Catholic Church.”

13. FR. A. TANQUERY, Dogmatic Brevior; ART. IV, Section I, II - 1945 (1024-1)
The Baptism of Desire. Contrition, or perfect charity, with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies in adults the place of the baptism of water as respects the forgiveness of sins.

This is certain.

Explanation: a) An implicit desire for Baptism, that is, one that is included in a general purpose of keeping all the commandments of God is, as all agree, sufficient in one who is invincibly ignorant of the law of Baptism; likewise, according to the more common opinion, in one who knows the necessity of Baptism.

b) Perfect charity, with a desire for Baptism, forgives original sin and actual sins, and therefore infuses sanctifying grace; but it does not imprint the Baptismal character and does not of itself remit the whole temporal punishment due for sin; whence, when the Unity offers, the obligation remains on one who was sanctified in this manner of receiving the Baptism of water.

FR. DOMINIC PRUMMER, O.P., Moral Theology, 1949:

•“Baptism of Desire which is a perfect act of charity that includes at least implicitly the desire for Baptism by water”;

•“Baptism of Blood which signifies martyrdom endured for Christ prior to the reception of Baptism by Water”;

•“Regarding the effects of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire... both cause sanctifying grace. ...Baptism of Blood usually remits all venial sin and temporal punishment...”

15. FR. FRANCIS O’CONNELL, Outlines of Moral Theology, 1953:
•“Baptism of Desire... is an act of divine charity or perfect contrition...”

•“These means (i.e. Baptism of Blood and Desire) presuppose in the recipient at least the implicit will to receive the sacrament.”

•“...Even if an infant can gain the benefit of the Baptism of Blood if he is put to death by a person actuated by hatred for the Christian faith....”

16. MGR. J. H. HERVE, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV), 1931

II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:

The various baptisms: from the Tridentinum itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied. Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied: namely, an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism, and the death as martyr. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one, as it were, generic name, so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood).

17. FR. H. NOLDEN, S.J., FR. A. SCHMIT, S.J. — Summa theologiae moralis (Vol. III de Sacramentis), Book 2 Quaestio prima, 1921

Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is perfect charity or contrition, in which the desire in fact to receive the sacrament of Baptism is included; perfect charity and perfect contrition, however, have the power to confer sanctifying grace.

18. FR. ARTHUR VERMEERSCH, S.J., Theologiae Moralis (Vol. III), Tractatus II, 1948:
The Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is an act of perfect charity or contrition, in so far as it contains at least a tacit desire of the Sacrament. Therefore it can be had only in adults. It does not imprint a character; ...but it takes away all mortal sin together with the sentence of eternal penalty, according to: “He who loves me, is loved by my Father” (John 14:21).

19. FR. LUDOVICO BILLOT, S.J., De Ecclesiae Sacmmentis (Vol. I); Quaestio LXVI; Thesis XXIV - 1931:

Baptism of spirit (flaminis), which is also called of repentance or of desire, is nothing else than an act of charity or perfect contrition including a desire of the Sacrament, according to what has been said above, namely that the heart of everyone is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe, and to love God, and to be sorry for his sins.

20. FR. ALOYSIA SABETTI, S.J., FR. TIMOTHEO BARRETT, S.J., Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Tractatus XII [De Baptismo, Chapter I, 1926:

Baptism, the gate and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire, is necessary for all unto salvation...

>From the Baptism of water, which is called of river (Baptismus fluminis), is from Baptism of the Spirit (Baptismus flaminis) and Baptism of Blood, by which Baptism properly speaking can be supplied, if this be impossible. The first one is a full conversion to God through perfect contrition or charity, in so far as it contains an either explicit or at least implicit will to receive Baptism of water... Baptism of Spirit (flaminis) and Baptism of Blood are called Baptism of desire (in voto).

21. FR. EDUARDUS GENICOT, S.]., Theologiae Moralis Institutiones (Vol. II), Tractatus XII, 1902

Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) consists in an act of perfect charity or contrition, with which there is always an infusion of sanctifying grace connected...

Both are called “of desire” (in voto)...; perfect charity, because it has always connected the desire, at least the implicit one, of receiving this sacrament, absolutely necessary for salvation.

Photo of the Superior General,Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI

ECCLESIA DEI BEGIN TALKS WITH THE SEDEVACANTISTS

Tell them common sense tells us we cannot see the dead saved who can be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Tell them that the Holy Office does not mention explicit implicit salvation.People imply it.
Vatican Council II (AG 7) says all need faith and baptism for salvation.
We do not know any exceptions and Vatican Council II does not state that LG 16 etc are exceptions.
There is no known salvation outside the church and we do not even know if anyone is saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.
CMRI,MHFM and others assume that implicit salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II is explicit and known to us.So they assume it contradicts the dogma. So they reject Vatican Council II.
Catholic Answers, Catholics United for the Faith and others also assume that these cases are explicit for us and so accept them and believe that the dogma has exceptions.
They all are in a common error for assuming that these cases are known to us.
We can all agree that the dead are not visible to us.
This could be the basis for reconciliation and unity.
-L.A

Photos from the CMRI website

The SSPX is not expected to affirm what is implied and assumed and is not a known fact in 2012.

The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX ) accepts Vatican Council II as a historical event. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre participated in it. So the issue is only the accepting of an interpretation of Vatican Council II.


The SSPX is not obliged to accept an interpretation of Vatican Council II based on implied errors and false premises with no reference text from the Council.


The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith( CDF) implies that there are deceased saved in invincible ignorance who are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This was implied in the interview with the National Catholic Register when he was asked about extra ecclesiam nulla salus.


There is no text in Vatican Council II which says those saved in invincible ignorance are explicit and visible to us and that they are known exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation.




There is no known case of salvation outside the Church. The CDF Prefect cannot name any such person in 2012.So the SSPX is not expected to affirm what is implied and assumed and is not a known fact in 2012.


The CDF Prefect has to imply that Lumen Gentium 16 contradicts the dogma - the text makes no such claim.


The SSPX could accept an interpretation of Vatican Council II which is traditional. This interpretation would be the only rational interpretation.It would be in accord with their position on other religions.-Lionel Andrades

The Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith implies that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 corrected Fr.Leonard Feeney for doctrine and being in heresy.The text of the Letter does not state this.
So the SSPX is not obliged to accept that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for denying being saved with implicit desire or invincible ignorance.
The controversial text in the Letter could apply to disobedience and discipline and not doctrine and heresy.Liberals and dissenters have 'pulled a fast one' on us.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/the-secretary-of-congregation-for.html#links


Archbishop Muller and Di Noia identify the premise of the visible dead in the interpretation of Vatican Council II
The SSPX is not obliged to accept something which is implied and is not part of the text of Vatican Council II.
The SSPX is not obliged to accept that there are known exceptions to the dogma when no one at the Vatican can name a single case in 2012.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/archbishop-muller-and-di-noia-identify.html#links