See the timing at28:53on this video. Cardinal Ladaria in answer to a question cites LG 8 as an exception to EENS.This is an objective error and it comes from the mistake the Church made in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.
(17: 11) Cardinal Ladaria tells Sandro Magister(Settimo Cielo) that a fundamental point of Dominus Iesus was the unicity of salvation in Jesus Christ.There is no other Saviour he says citing the Bible.So he says that here the Christian faith( not Catholic!) is very clear.
The second part of Dominus Iesus he said is Ecclesiology which deals with ecumenism etc.The document Dominus Iesus according to him, did not want to enter into that.The scope of Dominus Iesus for him it was only Christological.
So he confirms once again that ecclesiology has been changed when in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case it was assumed that unknown and invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance were known and visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), as it was known for example, to the missionaries in the 16th century.
Since the exclusivist ecclesiology of the popes over the centuries had been put aside with the false premise ( invisible non Catholics are visible examples of salvation outside the Church) all that is left is Christology without the necessity of being a member of the Catholic Church only, for Saviour.So doctrine and dogma on salvation has been set aside here.
Sandro Magister had initially asked about Dominus Iesus. He said that there were many questions raised after it was issued and he was hoping Placuit Deo would answer them.
Bishop Morani then added that this is the traditional teaching of the popes. This is false. Patently false.
The Jesuit in the Middle Ages, for example, held the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS which has been rejected today. This was confirmed in public by Pope Benedict in March 2016 (Avvenire).
The popes did not separate salvation in Jesus from being a member of the Catholic Church for salvation.The separation was made by the liberal theologians in the Boston Case and then at Vatican Council II.They had the support of a lobby.
However inspite of this innovation Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the false premise and the Church returns to the past ecclesiology and there is no rupture with the Syllabus of Errors which Cardinal Ratzinger and the liberal theologians rejected.
But out of obligations to the Masons and the rest of the Left in March 2016, Pope Benedict did not want to affirm Vatican Council II without the false premise. Neither did Cardinal Ladaria and Bishop Morani want to speak the truth and interpret the Council, without hypothetical cases being assumed to be objective people.The 'magisterium' once again chose a rupture instead of a continuity with Tradition.
This is an objective mistake. This is deception.So it cannot be magisterial. Since the Holy Spirit cannot teach error and make a mistake. This is personal bad theology, human error. -Lionel Andrades
At 1:52 on the video Cardinal Ladaria presents Jesus as the unique Saviour of the world and the rest of the Placquet Deo presentation is Christological and not Ecclesiocentric.It is Jesus without the necessity of membership in the Catholic Church for salvation.Since the Church made an objective mistake in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case, Placuit Deo could not affirm the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. ENTERING INTO GNOSTICISM
He then mentions Pelagianism and Gnosticism as a heresy but to reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) by assuming unknown and invisible cases of the baptism of desire are practical exceptions, is also heresy. This is entering into Gnosticism.
This was the mistake made by the Holy Office 1949 when it said that every one does not need to be a member of the Church for salvation since there could be exceptions of the baptism of desire etc, as if these were known people saved outside the Church. PLACUET DEO IN SCHISM WITH THE PAST POPES ON EENS, SYLLABUS OF ERRORS ETC
This was a schism with the past popes on EENS and Pope Benedict confirmed it in March 2016 (Avvenire) when he said that EENS today was no more like it was for the missionaries ( and Magisterium) of the 16th century. He said that there was 'a development' with Vatican Council II, of course, interpreted with hypothetical cases of LG 8 being objective and practical examples of salvation outside the Church, making the past exclusivist ecclesiology obsolete.
Where are these cases in 2016-2018? There are none he would answer if he was questioned.This is something obvious.
CARDINAL LADARIA AND BISHOP MORANI REJECT THE NECESSITY OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ONLY FOR SALVATION
Cardinal Ladaria criticizes the various wrong forms of seeking salvation among people in general, without Jesus Christ the unique and only Saviour.We can agree with him here. However he does not say that all need to believe in Jesus Christ only in the Catholic Church for salvation.So this is a new ecumenical understanding of salvation based on their being known salvation outside the Church. For a rational Catholic it has no theological basis since it is based on a false premise. It is suggested that unknown non Catholics are known. FALSE THEOLOGY SUGGESTS UNKNOWN NON CATHOLICS ARE PRACTICAL EXCEPTIONS TO EENS This is a false theology which suggests that these unknown non Catholics are practical exceptions to all needing to be members of the Church.Unknown people, who do not exist are examples for the CDF, of there being salvation outside the Catholic Church.It is false since there is no known salvation outside the Church. There can be no known salvation outside the Church for us human beings.So when there are no such cases how can these non existing people be relevant or exceptions to the past ecclesiology of the Church? CARDINAL LADARIA MADE THE SAME ERROR AT THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
Cardinal Ladaria made the same error when he was associated as a priest with the International Theological Commission1
He then continues to speak about Jesus as the only Saviour of the world which one does not dispute.But like Cardinal Ratzinger he could mean that the Jews do not need to convert into the Catholic Church and are saved in their religion through Jesus.He could also mean that there are Christians saved in their own religions, who believe in Jesus,and they are saved without receiving the Sacraments of the Catholic Church.All who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church is another slogan to prop the false New Theology. CHURCH DOES NOT REFER TO CATHOLIC CHURCH BUT CHRISTIANS IN GENERAL
So when Bishop Giacomo Morandi,the new Secretary of the CDF, asks a rhetorical question(Timing 9:36 on the video), "Where can we find this salvation?", he answers by saying 'in the Church', without qualifying if he is referring to the Catholic Church or like Pope Francis to Christians in general. He also does not qualify that it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church for this salvation but instead supports the Anonymous Christian theory.He cites Number 12 of Placuet Deo which is vague and general.It does not affirm exclusivist salvation in the Church since the CDF follows the wrong premise and conclusion in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case.If they did not use the false premise Pope Francis would call it 'triumphalism'. NEW SLOGANS TO PROP THE FALSE REASONING
So to accomodate the irrational and non traditional conclusion new slogans have been chosen like the Church being the Sacrament of Salvation, which is meaningless.Since it is being assumed that there are known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church with the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance, elements of sanctification and truth(LG 8) etc, when there are no such people in real life. BEING SAVED INVISIBLY AND NOT AS A VISIBLE MEMBER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
(11:31) The new Secretary of the CDF ,in vague Vaticanese language mentions that this Salvation, which he refers to, introduces us into a concrete relation with the Church and incorporates US into the Church(not specified) and in a community in time visible and invisible.
So he cannot say that every one needs to be incorporated into the Church visibly only since for him BOD, BOB and I.I are practical and known cases and so are relevant to EENS.If they are invisible they would not be examples of salvation outside the Church. A THEORETICAL POSSIBILITY OF SALVATION IS REAL FOR THEM AT THE CDF
So since there is known salvation outside the Church, a possibility of salvation outside the Church is real for him. So a non Catholic he concludes can be saved outside the Church.It would be an example of being saved 'invisibly'. This is the official convuluted reasoning at the CDF.It is really deception. BISHOP MORANI'S REASONING IS BASED ON THE MISTAKE IN THE FR. LEONARD FEENEY CASE Bishop Morani refers to being incorporated into the Church invisibly since BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8, LG 16 etc refer to known people, known non Catholics, saved outside the Church.So again we are back to the Fr. Leonard Feeney case and this irrational reasoning used there to eliminate the dogma EENS. BISHOP MORANI PLAYS IT BOTH WAYS
At 13:34 Bishop Morani plays it both ways. He says that the baptism of water is necessary for salvation, meaning there is salvation in also Protestants and other Christian religions and so membership in the Church is not obligatory .Earlier he had said that salvation is being incorporated into the Church( not specified) in an 'invisible' way.
A journalist noted that the word Catholic was not mentioned in the text of the document except in the heading.
Since obviously with the false premise they have ended the traditional theology on the Church having the exclusiveness in salvation. Cardinal Ladaria is frank and tells this to the AP correspondent.
Cardinal Ladaria tells the Associated Press journalist that there is no going back. He is clear and open. For him LG 8 refers to known people saved outside the Church. So there could be people in other religions too for him who are saved because they believe in Jesus or do not know Jesus but are anyhow saved by him.A theoretical possibility is a concrete exception to EENS for him. This is the Gnosticism which Cardinal Ratzinger has been promoting all these years.
-Lionel Andrades
See the timing at 28:53 on this video. Cardinal Ladaria in answer to a question cites LG 8 as an exception to EENS.This is an objective error and it comes from the mistake the Church made in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.
1
International Theological Commission (ITC)
10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22).-International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions 1997.
International Theological Commission (ITC)
62. It is not possible to develop a theology of the religions without taking into account the universal salvific mission of the Church, attested to by Holy Scripture and by the tradition of faith of the Church. A theological evaluation of the religions was impeded over a long time because of the principle extra ecclesiam nulla salus, understood in an exclusivist sense.(Lionel: Now it is not!)With the doctrine about the Church as the universal sacrament of salvation or the sacrament of the kingdom of God, theology seeks to respond to the new way of posing the problem. This teaching, which was also welcomed by Vatican Council II (Lionel: Interpreted with the false premise), is linked to the sacramental vision of the Church in the New Testament.-Christianity and the World Religions (2007. ITC).International Theological Commission (ITC)
66. In his encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pius XII addresses the question, How are those who attain salvation outside visible communion with the Church related to her? He says that they are oriented to the mystical body of Christ by a yearning and desire of which they are not aware (DS 3821).( Lionel: And this is an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus for Ratzinger and Ladaria )-Christianity and the World Religions 2007 66. The opposition of the American Jesuit Leonard Feeney, who insisted on the exclusivist interpretation of the expression extra ecclesiam nulla solus, afforded the occasion for the letter of the Holy Office, dated 8 August ,1949, to the archbishop of Boston, which rejected Feeney s interpretation and clarified the teaching of Pius XII. -Christianity and the World Religions 2007
A factual error was made in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case and it has influenced the interpretation of Vatican Council II by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF)
It was based upon the error the CDF(Holy Office 1949) made in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case that at the Placuit Deo Press Conference on March 1,2018 Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj interpreted Lumen Gentium 8 as being an exception to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. : a correction needs to be made by the CDF
A factual error was made in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case and it has influenced the interpretation of Vatican Council II by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF).
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj, Prefect of the CDF considers LG 8 an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) since the CDF(Holy Office 1949) considered the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) as exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
According to the apologist John Martignoni 'zero cases' of something are not exceptions to EENS.There are no known cases of BOD,BOB and I.I in 2018. Everybody agrees on this point.
This is something objective.There are no physically visible or personally known cases of BOD etc over the last 50 years.So Vatican Council II made a mistake to mention it in Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) and Lumen Gentium 14 (case of the unknown catechumen).
BOD etc are not exceptions to the dogma EENS says Archbishop Thomas Gullickson, Nuncio to Switzerland and Liechtenstein.He is making an objective observation.But Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Ladaria as Prefects of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has interpreted BOD, BOB and I.I as referring to physically visible and personally known non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church.So they made BOD, BOB and I.I a rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church and the Syllabus of Errors ( ecumenism of return).Probably if someone brought this to their attention they would agree with Archbishop Gullickson and everybody else. Since this is the rational observation.
They have made this error on line and in 'magisterial documents' and the mistake originates with the Fr. Leonard Feeney case. An injustice was done to this priest from Boston who refused to say that unknown cases of BOD,BOB and I.I were relevant or exceptions to the dogma EENS.
-Lionel Andrades
See the timing at 28:53 on this video. Cardinal Ladaria in answer to a question cites LG 8 as an exception to EENS.This is an objective error and it comes from the mistake the Church made in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.
It was based upon the error the CDF(Holy Office 1949) made in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case that at the Placuit Deo Press Conference on March 1,2018 Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj interpreted Lumen Gentium 8 as being an exception to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. : a correction needs to be made by the CDF
Posts
