Clearer Vatican II vision
A large crowd is seen in St. Peter's Square as Pope Francis
celebrates the canonization Mass for Sts. John XXIII and John Paul II at
the Vatican April 27, 2014. (CNS/Reuters/Stefano Rellandini)
THE VISION OF VATICAN II: ITS FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
624 pages; Published by Liturgical Press
$69.95
"People of God," "sensus fidelium," "signs of
the times," these phrases and more are the slogans by which most of us
know something, if anything, about the achievements of the Second
Vatican Council. It is rare that those of us who are not professional
theologians or ecclesiologists go deeper into the documents where these
phrases first appear and especially into the background history out of
which the documents themselves emerged.
With the appearance of Ormond Rush's new book, we no longer have an excuse for settling with a superficial grasp of the overall meaning of the council. A distinguished Australian theologian, Rush is well-known in academic circles for his influential books on the interpretation of Vatican II. His previous book, The Eyes of Faith, examined how the Holy Spirit enlightens the "supernatural sense of the faithful."
Lionel: At the onset let me say that the writer has made a mistake. He has interpreted Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism. He has used an irrational premise to project the Council as a rupture with Tradition( EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc).
The Council is Feeneyite without the false premise used by the writer, innocently.
______________________________
With the appearance of Ormond Rush's new book, we no longer have an excuse for settling with a superficial grasp of the overall meaning of the council. A distinguished Australian theologian, Rush is well-known in academic circles for his influential books on the interpretation of Vatican II. His previous book, The Eyes of Faith, examined how the Holy Spirit enlightens the "supernatural sense of the faithful."
Now in his new book, Rush engages academic theologians in
a deep analysis of the conciliar texts while presenting the complexity
of the Vatican council in a way that is also enormously rewarding to
less professional readers.
Lionel: The Council would continue to be complex and contradictory for readers since a false premise and inference is used to interpret the Council.
________________________
Theologians have for the most part taken sides in the reform versus "reform of the reform" that has dominated discussion of the council for the past 20 years.
Lionel: Both sides are using a false premise to interpret the Council to create an artificial rupture with Tradition.
________________________
Non-specialists who are aware of the council's importance to the shape of the church today may bemoan its consequent captivity to mindless liberalism or — in the case of the majority of NCR readers — wait longingly for the full implementation of the council's vision.
Lionel: Mindless liberalism is an apt description. Hypothetical and speculative references in the Council were interpreted as being personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church. This became the basis for the New Theology and the irrational and common false interpretation of the Council.
_________________________
This is, of course, the "popular" version of the academic debate. Both groups will benefit from paying close attention to Rush's method and to the insights it generates.
There are three important organizing ideas that shape this huge book. First, the 24 "fundamental principles" into which Rush divides the work are organized into three groups: hermeneutical, theological and ecclesiological.
Lionel: In principle the Council Fathers assumed unknown people were known exceptions to the past ecclesiology. This is theme in the Council. It is irrational. The conclusion is non traditional and creates what Pope Benedict called the hermeneutic of rupture with the past.
_________________________
Second, the author is insistent that the council needs to be seen more as a theological event than, as it is so often treated, as an ecclesiological event.
Lionel: Yes it was a major theological error. A disaster which is historical.It is not Catholic. The approach was unethical and the lie is still being maintained by those who are in a capacity to correct the mistake of the Council Fathers.
_________________________
Put better, perhaps, its reforming vision of the church is in the service of the event of God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ. Or a little more tersely, it makes the point that the church exists not for its own sake but for the sake of the Gospel.
Lionel: With the false premise and inference false exceptions are created to reject the traditional understanding of the Gospel.
_________________________
The third principle, which may seem in some respects to cut against the second, is Rush's commitment to understanding Vatican II as a pastoral council. The claim that Vatican II was "merely pastoral" is a standard statement of those who wish to play down its significance, while Rush's point is that it is pastoral precisely because the weight of its theological teaching intends the health of the community of faith.
Lionel: It is pastoral based upon a false theology.With a false premise and inference it has rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). Without this error the Council even today can be interpreted in harmony with Feeneyite EENS.But this is out of the scope of the author.
________________________
Anything that brings alive to believers the action of God in history is both pastoral and theological, and even pastoral because it is theological. Otherwise, it may just be fluff.
Lionel : With the New Theology based upon Cushingite BOD,BOB and I.I and Cushingite EENS, we have fluff.
With Feeneyite BOD,BOB and I.I and Feeneyite EENS we have a Council which is traditional and rational.
________________________
To make the case for the priority of theology over ecclesiology, Rush begins with the revelation/faith duo, which focuses on Dei Verbum, but goes beyond it. Correctly, since while it is one of the shorter conciliar documents, Dei Verbum is one of only two that were classified by the council fathers as a "dogmatic constitution," the highest grade of the 16 documents, so to speak. The way in which Rush addresses this key text models his approach to all the council documents and to the lengthy discussions of each of the principles.
Lionel: The Council would continue to be complex and contradictory for readers since a false premise and inference is used to interpret the Council.
________________________
Theologians have for the most part taken sides in the reform versus "reform of the reform" that has dominated discussion of the council for the past 20 years.
Lionel: Both sides are using a false premise to interpret the Council to create an artificial rupture with Tradition.
________________________
Non-specialists who are aware of the council's importance to the shape of the church today may bemoan its consequent captivity to mindless liberalism or — in the case of the majority of NCR readers — wait longingly for the full implementation of the council's vision.
Lionel: Mindless liberalism is an apt description. Hypothetical and speculative references in the Council were interpreted as being personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church. This became the basis for the New Theology and the irrational and common false interpretation of the Council.
_________________________
This is, of course, the "popular" version of the academic debate. Both groups will benefit from paying close attention to Rush's method and to the insights it generates.
There are three important organizing ideas that shape this huge book. First, the 24 "fundamental principles" into which Rush divides the work are organized into three groups: hermeneutical, theological and ecclesiological.
Lionel: In principle the Council Fathers assumed unknown people were known exceptions to the past ecclesiology. This is theme in the Council. It is irrational. The conclusion is non traditional and creates what Pope Benedict called the hermeneutic of rupture with the past.
_________________________
Second, the author is insistent that the council needs to be seen more as a theological event than, as it is so often treated, as an ecclesiological event.
Lionel: Yes it was a major theological error. A disaster which is historical.It is not Catholic. The approach was unethical and the lie is still being maintained by those who are in a capacity to correct the mistake of the Council Fathers.
_________________________
Put better, perhaps, its reforming vision of the church is in the service of the event of God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ. Or a little more tersely, it makes the point that the church exists not for its own sake but for the sake of the Gospel.
Lionel: With the false premise and inference false exceptions are created to reject the traditional understanding of the Gospel.
_________________________
The third principle, which may seem in some respects to cut against the second, is Rush's commitment to understanding Vatican II as a pastoral council. The claim that Vatican II was "merely pastoral" is a standard statement of those who wish to play down its significance, while Rush's point is that it is pastoral precisely because the weight of its theological teaching intends the health of the community of faith.
Lionel: It is pastoral based upon a false theology.With a false premise and inference it has rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). Without this error the Council even today can be interpreted in harmony with Feeneyite EENS.But this is out of the scope of the author.
________________________
Anything that brings alive to believers the action of God in history is both pastoral and theological, and even pastoral because it is theological. Otherwise, it may just be fluff.
Lionel : With the New Theology based upon Cushingite BOD,BOB and I.I and Cushingite EENS, we have fluff.
With Feeneyite BOD,BOB and I.I and Feeneyite EENS we have a Council which is traditional and rational.
________________________
To make the case for the priority of theology over ecclesiology, Rush begins with the revelation/faith duo, which focuses on Dei Verbum, but goes beyond it. Correctly, since while it is one of the shorter conciliar documents, Dei Verbum is one of only two that were classified by the council fathers as a "dogmatic constitution," the highest grade of the 16 documents, so to speak. The way in which Rush addresses this key text models his approach to all the council documents and to the lengthy discussions of each of the principles.
In the first instance, Dei Verbum makes sense
only when we know something of the background history of what has often
been called the "two sources" understanding of revelation. Rush makes
clear what was at stake when the draft document reflected an influential
but erroneous understanding of the Catholic position, and clearly
illustrates the debate and wrangling that took place in the struggle to
reach a better understanding. The importance of Dei Verbum is
that it locates revelation not as a series of scriptural or dogmatic
statements, but as the event of the self-revelation of God in Jesus
Christ, to which Scripture and tradition in their different ways
testify.
Lionel: Dei Verbum accepts one final revelation of Jesus Christ. With the false premise creating exceptions to the dogma EENS, which is based on Scripture, we have a new revelation in Vatican Council II. A new revelation which is a false interpretation based upon irrational and innovative reasoning.
_____________________________
The method by which Rush handles the discussion of faith and revelation is continued throughout the many ensuing discussions. The two terms that identify a particular pairing, "faith and history" or "people of God and hierarchy" or "church and world," for example, are never presented as opposites. Rather, they are complementary ideas that show the complexity and richness of the conciliar texts.
Like the council itself, the documents are not the final word on anything, and they leave much unsaid and much work to be done.
Lionel: The author needs to write another book on Vatican Council II in which he does not mix up what is invisible as being visible. Then he will discover that the Council is Feeneyite and not Cushingite. It is traditional and not liberal. This would be a disappointment for the readers of the National Catholic Reporter.Vatican Council II would support the past ecclesiology of the Traditional Latin Mass.
___________________________________________
The council for Rush is a work in progress, and the dynamism of ecclesial life, as it was at the time of the council, continues to be the place where a fuller appreciation of the work of the council will become apparent. Development and change are all over this fine book, though neither word appears in the title of any of the 24 principles that make it up. These ideas, as John Courtney Murray made clear, were at the heart of the council's work, and recognizing this explains the extent of the conservative backlash to at least some of the documents.
Lionel: Murray was a Cushingite like Cardinal Cushing who was also there at the Council and had still not lifted the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Now we know that we can interpret the Council in line with Fr. Leonard Feeney's traditional concept of outside the Church there is no salvation. So much of Murray's work was in vain.
______________________________________
Rush is entirely in agreement with Murray's judgment, but his book may go to show more clearly, with the benefit of more than 50 years of subsequent history, that the inevitability of change was not so much enshrined in the conciliar documents as it was proclaimed as a vital theological and ecclesial principle going forward.
Lionel: Dei Verbum accepts one final revelation of Jesus Christ. With the false premise creating exceptions to the dogma EENS, which is based on Scripture, we have a new revelation in Vatican Council II. A new revelation which is a false interpretation based upon irrational and innovative reasoning.
_____________________________
The method by which Rush handles the discussion of faith and revelation is continued throughout the many ensuing discussions. The two terms that identify a particular pairing, "faith and history" or "people of God and hierarchy" or "church and world," for example, are never presented as opposites. Rather, they are complementary ideas that show the complexity and richness of the conciliar texts.
Like the council itself, the documents are not the final word on anything, and they leave much unsaid and much work to be done.
Lionel: The author needs to write another book on Vatican Council II in which he does not mix up what is invisible as being visible. Then he will discover that the Council is Feeneyite and not Cushingite. It is traditional and not liberal. This would be a disappointment for the readers of the National Catholic Reporter.Vatican Council II would support the past ecclesiology of the Traditional Latin Mass.
___________________________________________
The council for Rush is a work in progress, and the dynamism of ecclesial life, as it was at the time of the council, continues to be the place where a fuller appreciation of the work of the council will become apparent. Development and change are all over this fine book, though neither word appears in the title of any of the 24 principles that make it up. These ideas, as John Courtney Murray made clear, were at the heart of the council's work, and recognizing this explains the extent of the conservative backlash to at least some of the documents.
Lionel: Murray was a Cushingite like Cardinal Cushing who was also there at the Council and had still not lifted the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Now we know that we can interpret the Council in line with Fr. Leonard Feeney's traditional concept of outside the Church there is no salvation. So much of Murray's work was in vain.
______________________________________
Rush is entirely in agreement with Murray's judgment, but his book may go to show more clearly, with the benefit of more than 50 years of subsequent history, that the inevitability of change was not so much enshrined in the conciliar documents as it was proclaimed as a vital theological and ecclesial principle going forward.
web 20120928nw1694.jpg
Pope John XXIII leads the opening session of the Second
Vatican Council in St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican Oct. 11, 1962.
(CNS/Catholic Press Photo/Giancarlo Giuliani)
This book is recommended to anyone who struggles to
understand the meaning of the Second Vatican Council and who is not
enlightened by the polarized antagonisms of recent decades. It is a long
book, admirably clear in the way it approaches sometimes complex
issues, and rewards the reader from its first word to its last.
Lionel: I would not recommend it. It's theology is outdated.We now have a rational and 'new' understanding of the Council. Future books on Vatican Council II are excepted to reflect this change.
__________________________________
As Rush concludes, all these principles he has discussed at length
intermingle with all the others, and that may be a relief to the reader
with limited time. There is a tight structure to the book, but not one
that requires the reader to start at the beginning and go on to the end.
You really can dip in and out. You will not get the whole story, but
you will get the point. And honestly, in the end, the point is to
rekindle a genuine sense of excitement at what the council continues to
mean for the church.
Lionel. It is what the Council continues to mean for the liberals, who do not know, or want to accept, that their interpretation is obsolete.
-Lionel Andrades
[Paul Lakeland is the Aloysius P. Kelley S.J. Professor of Catholic
Studies and director of the Center for Catholic Studies at Fairfield
University.]
https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/clearer-vatican-ii-vision
TERMS CLARIFIED
BOD(
Baptism of Desire . Case of the unknown cathechumen who desires the
baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is allegedly saved
and now in Heaven)
BOB (Baptism of Blood. The case of unknown person who is in Heaven as a martyr without the baptism of water)
I.I (Invincible
ignorance: The case of an unknown non Catholics who is in Heaven
without faith and baptism and instead in invincible ignorance.)
LG
8 ( Lumen Gentium 8: The case of the unknown person saved outside the
Church with 'elements of sanctification and truth' or where the true
Church of Christ allegedly subsists.
LG 14 (Lumen Gentium 14: Baptism of Desire . Case of the unknown cathechumen who desires the
baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is allegedly saved
and now in Heaven)
LG
16 ( Lumen Gentium 16: The case of the unknown person saved outside the
Church in invincible ignorance and who is now in Heaven without faith
and the baptism of water)
UR
3 (Unitatitis Redintigratiio 3, Vatican Council II : The case of the
unknown Christian, who is saved in his religions without Catholic faith
or the baptism of water in the Catholic Church and is allegedly known to
someone on earth who has seen him or her in Heaven).
NA
2( Nostra Aetate 2: The case of the unknown non Catholic saved outside
the Catholic Church without faith and baptism. He or she is saved with
good and holy things in other religion or with the a ray of that Truth
which enlightens all mankind.
GS
22 (Gaudium et Specs 22. The case of the unknown non Catholic who is
saved outside the Catholic Church. He or she is saved without faith and
baptism but with goodwill.
November 11, 2019
The Oxford University Press has produced many books on Vatican Council II based upon a false premise. A deceptive rupture is created with Catholic Tradition
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-oxford-university-press-has.html
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).
__________________________________
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.
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.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/01/traditionalists-cannot-tell-faggioli.html
________________________________________________________________
OCTOBER 19, 2017
And Faggioli and the rest get away with it once again
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/and-faggioli-and-rest-get-away-with-it.html
OCTOBER 8, 2017
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/massimo-faggioli-and-cardinal-burke.html
TERMS EXPLAINED
TERMS EXPLAINED
Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reasoning which says there are no known
exceptions past or present, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla
salus(EENS).There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional
interpretation of EENS.It affirms traditional EENS like the missionaries
and magisterium of the 16th century.
Cushingism: It
is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes there
are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS.There are
exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church for
salvation.It wronly assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not
hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are
objective in the present times.So it uses the false premise to reject
the traditional interpretation of EENS.
Irrational premise: It is assuming hypothetical cases are not hypothetical but instead are objective cases in the present times.
It assumes invisible and unknown people are visible and unknown in our reality.
Baptism of Desire ( premise-free): It
refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires
the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since
this is an invisible case in our reality it, the baptism of desire, is
not relevant to the dogma EENS.
Baptism of Desire (with the false premise): It
refers to the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of
water but dies before he receives it and is saved.A known person is
assumed to be known.
Invincible Ignorance ( premise-free): This
refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the
baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since
it is a hypothetical case it is not an exception to the dogma EENS.The
false premise was not used.
Invincible Ignorance (with the false premise): This
refers to the explicit case of someone allegedly saved without the
baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since
it is an exception to the dogma EENS it is assumed to be objectively
known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational.
Council of Florence: One
of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention
any exception.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was premise-free.
Liberal theologians: They
re-interpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible
ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.They used the false premise.
Vatican Council II (with the premise):
It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.
Vatican Council II ( premise-free):It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a
break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the
Nicene Creed ( premise-free),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ
the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church
and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston:(with the false premise)
It
assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So
it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the
traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard
Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the
baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The
Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second
part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.It used the false premise.
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( premise-free). It means interpreting the first part of the the Letter without the false premise.Only the first part.It
supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion
of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.However the second
part of the Letter contradicts the first part since it uses the false
premise.
Letter of the Holy Office ( with the false premise).The
second part of the Letter rejects the traditional interpretation of
EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( with the premise) and
being saved in invincible ignorance ( with the premise) as being
exceptions to EENS (premise-free). In other words they are mistaken for
being visible and known cases when they really are invisible for us.It
wrongly assumes hypothetical cases are objectively visible and so they
are exceptions to the first part of the Letter.
Baltimore Catechism: It
assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who
dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism
of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In
other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible
and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it
like the baptism of water.The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with the confusion.It can be interpreted premise-free.
Catechism of Pope X: It
followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in
the Baptism Section.It can be interpreted as being premise -free. The
references to invincible ignorance etc have to be interpreted without
the false premise. So it does not contradict the dogma EENS( premise-free).
Nicene Creed ( with the premise): It
says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means
there are more than three known baptisms when the false premise is used
in the interpretation. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word
etc.This is an irrational but common understanding.
Nicene Creed ( premise-free): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.
New Theology: : (with the premise) It
refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical
cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma
EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church
changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.It
is of course based on the false premise.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( with the false premise).It
refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto
convert into the Church in the present times, since there are
exceptions.The baptism of desire( with the premise), baptism of blood(
with the premise) and being saved in invincible ignorance( with the
premise) are exceptions to dogma as it was known to the missionaries in
the 16th century.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( premise-free): It refers
to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no
known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, with faith
and baptism, to avoid Hell.Invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism
of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not visible
exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Catholic Church
for salvation.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( with the premise): CCC
1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction. Also CCC 848 is
based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS(
premise-free). So this is an interpretation of the Catechism with the false premise.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( premise-free): CCC
1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since there
are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for
salvation. There are no known cases in the present times of God not
being not limited to the Sacraments(CCC1257).
When
CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the
Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needing
to formally enter the Church.It is a reference to a hypothetical case
and not somebody known. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which
states all need faith and baptism for salvation.
________________________
Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reasoning which says there are no known
exceptions past or present, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla
salus(EENS).There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional
interpretation of EENS.It affirms traditional EENS like the missionaries
and magisterium of the 16th century.
Cushingism: It
is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes there
are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS.There are
exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church for
salvation.It wronly assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not
hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are
objective in the present times.So it uses the false premise to reject
the traditional interpretation of EENS.
Irrational premise: It is assuming hypothetical cases are not hypothetical but instead are objective cases in the present times.
It assumes invisible and unknown people are visible and unknown in our reality.
Baptism of Desire ( premise-free): It
refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires
the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since
this is an invisible case in our reality it, the baptism of desire, is
not relevant to the dogma EENS.
Baptism of Desire (with the false premise): It
refers to the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of
water but dies before he receives it and is saved.A known person is
assumed to be known.
Invincible Ignorance ( premise-free): This
refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the
baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since
it is a hypothetical case it is not an exception to the dogma EENS.The
false premise was not used.
Invincible Ignorance (with the false premise): This
refers to the explicit case of someone allegedly saved without the
baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since
it is an exception to the dogma EENS it is assumed to be objectively
known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational.
Council of Florence: One
of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention
any exception.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was premise-free.
Liberal theologians: They
re-interpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible
ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.They used the false premise.
Vatican Council II (with the premise):
It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.
Vatican Council II ( premise-free):It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a
break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the
Nicene Creed ( premise-free),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ
the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church
and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston:(with the false premise)
It
assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So
it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the
traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard
Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the
baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The
Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second
part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.It used the false premise.
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( premise-free). It means interpreting the first part of the the Letter without the false premise.Only the first part.It
supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion
of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.However the second
part of the Letter contradicts the first part since it uses the false
premise.
Letter of the Holy Office ( with the false premise).The
second part of the Letter rejects the traditional interpretation of
EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( with the premise) and
being saved in invincible ignorance ( with the premise) as being
exceptions to EENS (premise-free). In other words they are mistaken for
being visible and known cases when they really are invisible for us.It
wrongly assumes hypothetical cases are objectively visible and so they
are exceptions to the first part of the Letter.
Baltimore Catechism: It
assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who
dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism
of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In
other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible
and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it
like the baptism of water.The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with the confusion.It can be interpreted premise-free.
Catechism of Pope X: It
followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in
the Baptism Section.It can be interpreted as being premise -free. The
references to invincible ignorance etc have to be interpreted without
the false premise. So it does not contradict the dogma EENS( premise-free).
Nicene Creed ( with the premise): It
says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means
there are more than three known baptisms when the false premise is used
in the interpretation. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word
etc.This is an irrational but common understanding.
Nicene Creed ( premise-free): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.
New Theology: : (with the premise) It
refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical
cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma
EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church
changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.It
is of course based on the false premise.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( with the false premise).It
refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto
convert into the Church in the present times, since there are
exceptions.The baptism of desire( with the premise), baptism of blood(
with the premise) and being saved in invincible ignorance( with the
premise) are exceptions to dogma as it was known to the missionaries in
the 16th century.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( premise-free): It refers
to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no
known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, with faith
and baptism, to avoid Hell.Invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism
of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not visible
exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Catholic Church
for salvation.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( with the premise): CCC
1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction. Also CCC 848 is
based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS(
premise-free). So this is an interpretation of the Catechism with the false premise.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( premise-free): CCC
1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since there
are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for
salvation. There are no known cases in the present times of God not
being not limited to the Sacraments(CCC1257).
When
CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the
Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needing
to formally enter the Church.It is a reference to a hypothetical case
and not somebody known. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which
states all need faith and baptism for salvation.
________________________
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment