Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), put together the 1983 Code of Canon Law while assuming unknown cases of the baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) were known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. With this irrational reasoning from the 1949 Letter of the (CDF) Holy Office (LOHO) he further wrongly assumed that physically invisible cases in the present times, mentioned in LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, are physically visible and personally known examples of salvation outside the Church. So there were exceptions to the traditional teachings on the Church having an exclusiveness in salvation.
The alleged exceptions in salvation theology were then projected as the rule. This was a new doctrine.
He did not same with moral theology. This is indicated in his classification of exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.He allowed the Church to project possibilities of attenuating circumstances of ignorance etc as eliminating the culpability for mortal sins.
EXCEPTIONS IN MORAL AND SALVATION THEOLOGY
EXCEPTIONS IN MORAL AND SALVATION THEOLOGY
So there were alleged known exceptions, for him, to traditional moral and salvation theology. These new doctrines were also being taught, and are still taught, at the pontifical universities in Rome.
The norm was no more : manifest mortal sins leads to Hell with no known examples, but the new narrative was manifest mortal sin leads to Hell but there are known exceptions.
Similarly the norm on faith issues, was being saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, baptism of blood, elements of sanctification and truth in other religions (LG 8 ) etc, outside the Church and not Catholic faith with the baptism of water.
In an interview with the Catholic News Agency the then Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal, Vatican praised the 1917 Code of Canon Law.He said that it was was clear that a priest in mortal sin should not offer Mass without availing of the Sacrament of Reconciliation.This law which was there in the 1917 code 'has been eliminated' said the cardinal. Cardinal Raymond Burke says he thinks that law should be reintroduced.1
It may be mentioned that there are cardinals, bishops and priests in the USA who give pro-abortion politicians the Eucharist. They know it is wrong and yet they persist.Then there are Catholic religious who reject the Creed and defined dogmas and yet they are allowed to offer Mass under the 1983 Code of Canon Law.
The Codof Canon Law (1983) is interpreted as obliging priests to interpret BOD, BOB and I.I as referring to visible and known people saved outside the Church.So they are exceptions to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.This is how it is interpreted. The text may not say it directly.
It is important to note that priests can still affirm the 1983 Code of Canon Law and accept BOD, BOB and I.I - but interpret them as being invisible and unknown.This is common sense. Also the Code does not state that they have to be interpreted as being visible and known. It leaves the inference to the reader.
LUMEN GENTIUM 14 IS NOT AN EXCEPTION TO FEENEYITE EENS
LUMEN GENTIUM 14 IS NOT AN EXCEPTION TO FEENEYITE EENS
Similarly we can affirm LG 14 but interpret 'those who know' and those who 'do not know' and who are saved or not saved as being known only to God.They are hypothetical and speculative cases for us. They cannot be anything else.So they are not exceptions to EENS as it was known to Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston, the Early Church Fathers and the Medieval Fathers of the Church.
Cardinal Ratzinger did not announce that being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), seeds of the Word (AG 11) etc all refer to hypothetical cases.So they never ever were exceptions to the past ecclesiology and the centuries old interpretation of EENS.
SUPERFICIAL INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II
It was a superficial interpretation of Vatican Council II which considered LG 14 16, LG 8, LG 14, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22, AG 11, AG 7, etc as exceptions to EENS.In other words they refer to known and visible cases.This is false and it is allegedly magisterial.
So if Cardinal Ratzinger wanted he could have made the correction with reference to the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office(1949) and Vatican Council II (1965).
CARD.RATZINGER DID NOT ANNOUNCE THE MISTAKE IN VATICAN COUNCIL II
CARD.RATZINGER DID NOT ANNOUNCE THE MISTAKE IN VATICAN COUNCIL II
Then he could have announced that there was a mistake in Vatican Council II.The Council should not have said in Lumen Gentium 14 that those who know and do not enter the Church are on the way to Hell without clarifying that all non Catholics in general need to enter the Church with no exceptions and being saved in invincible ignorance was not an exception.Cardinal Ratzinger could have said that we do not know who 'knows' or 'does not know' and will be saved or not saved.So LG 14 does not contradict the 16th century missionaries understanding of EENS.
CARD.MULLER INTERPRETED LG 14 AS AN EXCEPTION TO EENS
When Edward Pentin asked Cardinal Muller about EENS in an interview for the National Catholic Register the former Prefect of the CDF said LG 14 was an exception.So EENS was no more like it was before.This was confirmed in March 2016 by Pope Benedict XVI in the interview with Avvenire.
ST.BENEDICT CENTER CANONICAL PETITION
Now when the St. Benedict Center has filed a canonical petition with the Diocese of Manchester, USA they have to be aware of all this.The CDF and the Diocese of Manchester will interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism - and then consider it canonical.They will also interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus with the same irrationality.Then they will assume that their personal inference is magisterial and canonical.They will come to the 1983 Code of Canon Law with Cushingite philosophy( hypotheticals are practical exceptions to EENS in 2019).
BOD,BOB AND I.I FEENEYITE OR CUSHINGITE?
BOD,BOB AND I.I FEENEYITE OR CUSHINGITE?
It would be useful if the SBC clarifies on their website references to Cushingism and Feeneyism at all levels i.e Vatican Council II, EENS, BOD,BOB and I.I.They have to show how they interpret BOD, BOB and I.I etc with or without the false premise.
They cannot really say that they accept all the teachings of the 'magisterium' when the CDF is promoting Cushingism, which creates a rupture with Tradition. It is heretical and not magisterial.
DOCTRINAL POSITION OF VATICAN
DOCTRINAL POSITION OF VATICAN
The present doctrinal position of the Vatican is clear. Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj, Prefect of the CDF interpreted LG 14 as an exception to EENS( Placuit Deo Press Conference March 1, 2018).Archbishops Morandi and Di Noia interpreted the Catechism of the Catholic Church n.847-848 as exceptions to Feeneyite EENS( Diocese of Manchester website). Pope Benedict said that EENS today was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century(Avvenire March 2016). For him there was a development with Vatican Council II, which he interprets with Cushingism.
These are important factors in a canonical petition with reference to EENS and Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades
1
July 11, 2012
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment