Thursday, October 31, 2019
There are no arguements to support exceptions to EENS. There cannot be any objective exception, whatever is the argument
A Catholic can interpret Vatican Council in harmony with the past exclusivist ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and the Syllabus of Errors or/and he can also reject the Council since it has an objective error, which cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.The error the periti made was to assume there were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and then they placed 'the exceptions' in the text of the Council.
A Catholic can interpret Vatican Council in harmony with the past exclusivist ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and the Syllabus of Errors or/and he can also reject the Council since it has an objective error, which cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.The error the periti made was to assume there were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and then they placed 'the exceptions' in the text of the Council.
So for Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, Lumen Gentium would contradict the past ecclesiology but for a discerning Catholic LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc, does not contradict the past ecclesiology and so Lumen Gentium is defide and orthodox with reference to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
In Lumen Gentium 14 the Council Fathers assumed being saved in invincible ignorance was an exception to EENS.
This is an error.The text wrongly suggest only those who know and who are not in ignorance, need to enter the Church.
Bishop Donald Sanborn, Bishop Mark Pivarunas, Michael and Peter Dimond and other sedevacantists, may choose to reject Vatican Council II because of this error.I would not do so .I would simply interpret invincible ignorance as being a hypothetical case.So it is not a practical exception to EENS. I do not have to reject Vatican Council II nor the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
I do not have to choose.
Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada have to choose.Since like some of the periti, they interpret invincible ignorance as referring to a 'physical body', in time and space. So invincible ignorance would have to be an exception to EENS. They would have to choose between physically visible invincible ignorance and Feeneyite EENS.
Michael and Peter Dimond theoretically say there is no BOD(LG 14) and I.I(LG 16) but in reality they see them as 'physical bodies'. So they become exceptions to EENS. They reject Vatican Council II as contradicting EENS and the past ecclesiology.I do not have to do all this.
Bishop Mark Pivarunas and Fr. Benedict Hughes have a long list of baptism of desire cases listed on the CMRI website.This is an indication, that Vatican Council II would be a rupture with the past ecclesiology for them.The baptism of desire refers to 'physical bodies' in time and space for them.
I would have told Cardinal Gerhard Muller and Archbishop Augustine di Noi that Lumen Gentium 8 ( elements of sanctification and truth/subsists it) and Lumen Gentium 14 ( invincible ignorance) do not refer to 'physical bodies' saved and seen in the present times.But Edward Pentin did not know. When he asked Muller and Di Noia about EENS, in two different interviews for the National Catholic Register,they postulated LG 8 and LG 14 as exceptions. Their new theology contradicts Aristotle's Principle of Non Contradiction.But Pentin, let it pass.Since it is the same for him too. LG 8 and LG 14 are exceptions to EENS . He did not notice it.
Bradley Eli praised Pope Benedict when he said that EENS today, for him, was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century. Since for the CMTV Staff too, BOD,BOB and I.I are 'physical bodies' in time and space. Even Tancred at the blog The Eponymous Flower made this same mistake-as some of the influential periti at Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades
EWTN's Tragic Errors of Leonard Feeney by Fr. William Most present arguments which cannot be practical exceptions to EENS, they cannot violate Newton's Laws of Physics
TRAGIC ERRORS OF LEONARD FEENEYby Fr. William MostIn the late 1940s Leonard Feeney, S. J. began to teach that there is no salvation outside the Church. He was correct in saying that there were official teachings, even definitions, on that score.
But his tragic error came when he adopted Protestant method, thinking that in that way he would be one of the only true Catholics! We spoke of his disobedience, refusing to go to Rome to explain his position. Then protestant method with good reason. First, he was excommunicated for the Holy Office, under Pius XII...in the very first paragraph pointed out what is obvious: we must avoid private interpretation of Scripture -- for that is strictly Protestant.But then the letter said we must also avoid private interpretation of the official texts of the Church. To insist on our own private interpretation, especially when the Church contradicts that, is pure Protestant attitude.What the disobedient Feeney said amounted to this: he insisted that all who did not formally enter the Church would go to hell.
Hence he had to say, and he did say, that unbaptized babies go to hell.Further, all adults who did not formally enter the Church - get their names on a parish register - would also go to hell, even if they western hemisphere during the long centuries before Columbus,never had a chance to hear there was a Church, e.g., those in thee.g., those in the western hemisphere during the long centuries before Columbus. Therefore Feeney consigned literally millions upon millions to hell,even though He gave them no chance.
Not just the documents of the Church as interpreted by the Church should have kept him from this: merely common sense, and the realization that God is not only not a monster, but is infinitely good - that alone should have stopped him. We have, then, most ample deny that God is good. Feeney does worse than they reason for calling his error tragic. Even the sexually immoral do not deny that God is good. Feeney does worse than they.
In regard to the damnation of infants, tragically, Feeney cited a text of Pius IX (quoted below) saying that no one goes to hell without grave voluntary sin - babies of course have no voluntary sin. Feeney actually ridiculed the text of Pius IX and charged Pius IX with the Good Fight, Catholic Treasures, Monrovia CA. 1987, pp. 305-06): "To heresy of Pelagianism, saying (in Thomas M. Sennott, They Fought the say that God would never permit anyone to be punished eternally Pelagianism... . If God cannot punish eternally a human being who has unless he had incurred the guilt of voluntary sin is nothing short of not incurred the guilt of voluntary sin, how then, for example can He punish eternally babies who die unbaptized?"
There is another feature of sound theological method we need to recall here. If we seem to have on hand two truths, which seem to clash head on, and they are there even after we recheck our work, we must not try to force one to fit with the other.
No, we must faithfully state both points, hoping that sometime someone will find how to make them fit. The Fathers did very well on this matter. For on the human knowledge of Jesus, most of the Fathers made two kinds example, in dealing with the difficult texts of Lk 2:52 and Mk 13:32 of statements, one kind affirming ignorance, the other denying it.
Finally , on the Lucan text St. Athanasius found how to reconcile the statements; later, Pope St. Gregory the great did the same for the Markan text. (For details see Wm. G. Most,). The same situation is found in regard to texts both of the Fathers and of the Magisterium on membership in the Church. One set of texts seems very severe, the other kind, very broad.
or commentary on each text, please see. W. Most,, Appendix. a) Restrictive Tests of the Fathers
The Shepherd of Hermas,9.16:(c. 140 AD) "The apostles and the teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, when they fell asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God preached also to those who had fallen asleep earlier, and they gave them the seal of and they gave them the seal of the preaching. They therefore went down into the water with them, and came up again."..ibid. 36.79: "Baptism can exist... even among heretics... but it cannot be beneficial outside the Catholic Church."b) Restrictive Texts of the MagisteriumPope Innocent III,Lateran Council IV (1215: DS 802): "There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved."(1208: DS 792): "We believe in our heart and confess in our mouth that there is one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic apostolic Church, outside of which we believe no one is saved." Pope Boniface VIII,Pope Clement VI,(1302: DS 870): "Outside of which there is neither salvation nor remission of sins... . But we declare, state and define that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is altogether necessary for salvation." [The second part merely means there is no salvation outside the Church, for it is quoted from St. Thomas Aquinas, Contra errores Graecorum 36. #1125 where context shows the sense]. , 1351: DS 1051): "No man... outside the faith of the Church and obedience to the Roman Pontiff can finally be saved." Council of Florence (1442: DS 1351): "It firmly believes, professes and preaches, that none who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can partake of eternal life, but they will go into eternal fire... unless before the end of life they will have been joined to it [the Church] and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body has such force that only for those who remain in it are the sacraments of the Church profitable for salvation; and fastings, alms, and other works of piety and exercises of the Christian soldiery bring forth eternal rewards [only] for them. 'No one, howsoever much almsgiving he has done, even if he sheds his blood for Christ, can be saved, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. '" [Internal quote at end is from Fulgentius, as we saw above].
Broad Texts of the Magisterium Pope Pius IX,(1863: DS 2866): "God... in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of the Catholic Church can be saved, and that those who are contumacious voluntary fault. But it is also a Catholic dogma, that no one outside are obstinately separated from the unity of this Church and from the against the authority of the same Church [and] definitions and who Roman Pontiff, and from the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, to whom the custody of the vineyard was entrusted by the Savior, cannot obtain eternal salvation."[emphasis added].
Pope Pius XII,(1943: DS 3821): "They who do not belong to the visible bond of the Catholic Church... [we ask them to] strive to take themselves from that state in which they cannot be to the mystical body of the Redeemer by a certain desire and wish of sure of their own eternal salvation; for even though they are ordered wills], yet they lack so many and so great heavenly gifts and helps which they are not aware [implicit in the general wish to do what God which can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church."Lionel: This is an intellectual argument. In real life there are no 'physical bodies', at the Newtonian level, no real people, known to be saved outside the Church. So Lumen Gentium 16 does not contradict Newton's Laws of Physics.There cannot be any objective exception, whatever is the argument.__________________
Holy Office, Aug 9, 1949, condemning doctrine of L. Feeney (DS 3870):"It is not always required that one be actually incorporated as a member of the Church, but this at least is required: that one adhere to it in wish and desire. It is not always necessary that this be explicit... but when a man labors under invincible ignorance, God accepts even an implicit will, called by that name because it is contained in the good disposition of soul in which a man wills to conform his will to the will of God."Lionel: This is an intellectual argument. In real life there are no 'physical bodies', at the Newtonian level, no real people, known to be saved outside the Church. So Lumen Gentium 16 does not contradict Newton's Laws of Physics.There cannot be any objective exception, whatever is the argument.____________________
Vatican II,#16: (1964 AD) For they who without their own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation."
Lionel: This is an intellectual argument. In real life there are no physical bodies, no real people, known to be saved outside the Church. So Lumen Gentium 16 does not contradict Newton's Laws of Physics.There cannot be any objective exception, whatever is the argument.
______________
John Paul II, #10 (Dec. 7, 1990): "The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the church. Since all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to have an opportunity to come to know or accept the Gospel revelation relationship to the church, does not make them formally a part of the or to enter the church... . For such people, salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their cooperation..."
Lionel: This is an intellectual argument. In real life there are no 'physical bodies', at the Newtonian level, no real people, known to be saved outside the Church. So Lumen Gentium 16 does not contradict Newton's Laws of Physics.There cannot be any objective exception, whatever is the argument.______________Broad Texts of the FathersPope St. Clement I,7.5-7 (c. 95 AD): "Let us go through all generations, and learn that in generation and generation the Master has given a place of repentance to those willing to turn to Him. Noah preached repentance, and those who heard him were saved...18.5 [at funeral of his father, a convert]:(c. 374 AD): "He was ours even before he was of our fold.His way of living made him such. For just as many of ours are not with us, whose life makes them other from our body [the Church], so many of those outside belong to us, who by their way of life anticipate the faith and need [only] the name, having the reality."
18.47: (413-26 AD): "Nor do I think the Jews would dare to argue that no one pertained to God except the Israelites, from the time that Israel came to be... they cannot deny that there were certain men even in other nations who pertained to earthly but by heavenly association..."2.5: (c. 450 AD): "... according to it [Scripture] ... we believe and devoutly confess that never was the care of divine providence lacking to the totality of men... . To these, however [who have not yet heard of Christ] that general measure of help, which is always given from above to all men, is not denied.". 154:(perhaps c. 430 AD): "In every nation the one who fears God and does justice is acceptable to Him. For it is clear that such a one is acceptable to God and is not to be cast aside, who at his own right time flees to the worship of the blessed knowledge of God.
St. Cyril of Alexandria,3.107: (433-41 AD): "For if there is One over all, and there is no other besides Him, He would be Master of all, because He was Maker of all. For He is also the God of hearts, which the Maker has engraved in the hearts of all [cf. Rom the gentiles, and has fully satisfied by laws implanted in their 2.14-16]. For when the gentiles, [Paul] says, not having the law, do of the Jews [cf. Rom 3.29] but also of the gentiles... He sees fit by by nature the things of the law, they show the work of the law written on their hearts. But since He is not only the Maker and God His providence to care not only for those who are of the blood of Theodoret of Cyrus, Israel, but also for all those upon the earth...."Lionel: This is an intellectual argument. In real life there are no 'physical bodies', at the Newtonian level, no real people, known to be saved outside the Church. So Lumen Gentium 16 does not contradict Newton's Laws of Physics.There cannot be any objective exception, whatever is the argument.__________________
1. Following proper theological method, the Fathers and the Magisterium saw two things:a)the Church is necessary for salvation;1. Following proper theological method, the Fathers and the)In some way God must make provision for those who do not find the Church. b
Lionel: This is an intellectual argument. In real life there are no 'physical bodies', at the Newtonian level, no real people, known to be saved outside the Church. So Lumen Gentium 16 does not contradict Newton's Laws of Physics.There cannot be any objective exception, whatever is the argument.
_________________
This was already stated in Romans 3.29 by St. Paul. If He did not do that, He would act as though He were not their God- He would condemn millions to hell who never had a chance!. Such a God could not be a God at all, but a monster.
Lionel: This is an intellectual argument. In real life there are no 'physical bodies', at the Newtonian level, no real people, known to be saved outside the Church. So Lumen Gentium 16 does not contradict Newton's Laws of Physics.There cannot be any objective exception, whatever is the argument.___________________2. In an effort to find how to fit the two together, most of them expressed a very broad concept of membership in the Church.
Then one can say that there is no salvation outside the Church, but that the concept of membership is very broad, and covers even those who do not find the Church.Lionel: This is an intellectual argument. In real life there are no 'physical bodies', at the Newtonian level, no real people, known to be saved outside the Church. So Lumen Gentium 16 does not contradict Newton's Laws of Physics.There cannot be any objective exception, whatever is the argument.__________________
Later Magisterium texts speak of those who pertain to the Church or are joined to the Church by even an unconscious desire, contained in the will to do what is right. John Paul II spoke of a mysterious grace.Lionel: This is an intellectual argument. In real life there are no 'physical bodies', at the Newtonian level, no real people, known to be saved outside the Church. So Lumen Gentium 16 does not contradict Newton's Laws of Physics.There cannot be any objective exception, whatever is the argument.__________________
Our proposal, expressed above in our comments on LG 5 do not contradict these things. Rather, they try to fill in, taking a lead from St. Justin that some in the past could have been Christians because they followed the Logos, who is in all. We attached the thought of St. Justin to Romans 2:14-16. This is not strained, for when we say the Logos, a Spirit is present, we really mean He is producing an effect: His presence is not spatial. What effect does He produce? He produces the effect of making known to them interiorly what the law requires, so that the law is written on their hearts, as Rom 2:15 said, following Jeremiah 31:33. (All actions done by the Three Divine Persons outside the Divine nature are common work to all three. Cf. DS 800. Hence we may say God did it, or the Logos did it, or the Spirit of Christ - all mean the same).
Then, if, for example Socrates - explicitly mentioned by St. Justin - follows the law on his heart, Socrates does not know the source of that law. It is really the Spirit of Christ who writes it. In accepting it, Socrates objectively accepts the Spirit of Christ.Since he accepts and follows that Spirit, he of course follows the Logos. But in Romans 8:9 we hear that "If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him." So then, one who does have and follow that Spirit, does belong to Christ . But to belong to Christ in St. Paul's language means to be a member of Christ - which is a member of the Church, by substantial membership, even though without formal external adherence.
So people of this sort who follow the law on their hearts are members of the Church, and as such, can be saved. This fits especially well with the words of Vatican II in LG 16.
Lionel: This is an intellectual argument. In real life there are no 'physical bodies', at the Newtonian level, no real people, known to be saved outside the Church. So Lumen Gentium 16 does not contradict Newton's Laws of Physics.There cannot be any objective exception, whatever is the argument.
____________________
We are not saying, of course, that the Baptist church, for example, is a component part of the Catholic Church. No we merely say that conditions given above, become substantially, not formally, members some who are Baptists (or other types) can, if they fill the of the Catholic Church as individuals, and so can be saved.Lionel: This is an intellectual argument. In real life there are no 'physical bodies', at the Newtonian level, no real people, known to be saved outside the Church. So Lumen Gentium 16 does not contradict Newton's Laws of Physics.There cannot be any objective exception, whatever is the argument.____________________When Feeney was old, some church authorities out of sorrow for him, let him be reconciled to the Church. As part of the unfortunate looseness we se so often today, they did not demand that he recant.So he did not. As a result, some former followers of his came back to recantation meant Feeney had been right all along. Of course not. We the Church. Others even today insist that the lack of demanding a have proved that abundantly with official texts above and the texts of the Fathers of the Church.
Lionel: This is an intellectual argument. In real life there are no 'physical bodies', at the Newtonian level, no real people, known to be saved outside the Church. So Lumen Gentium 16 does not contradict Newton's Laws of Physics.There cannot be any objective exception, whatever is the argument._____________________Let us add one more thing. In the parable of the talents, the man who hid his talent told the master he knew the master was a hard man. The master replied that he would judge him out of his own mouth, and God may not follow the pattern given in the parable and say: Youcondemned him. So when a Feenyite comes up for judgment,we pray that God may not follow the pattern given in the parable and say: You insisted I was a monster. Very good, I will be a monster to you. Hell is your place.Lionel: This is an intellectual argument. In real life there are no 'physical bodies', at the Newtonian level, no real people, known to be saved outside the Church. So Lumen Gentium 16 does not contradict Newton's Laws of Physics.There cannot be any objective exception, whatever is the argument.-Lionel Andrades
Tragic Errors of Leonard Feeney
Authored By: Fr. William Most
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/tragic-errors-of-leonard-feeney-12314
LOHO was wrong to criticize Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center : arguments only exist at the intellectual level. In reality there can be no physical body to contradict the laws of Newton.
LOHO was wrong to criticize Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center.
Arguments only exist at the intellectual level. In reality there can be no physical body to contradict the laws of Newton.
All those arguments on the baptism of desire, New Theology, Anonymous Christian, Fr.Leonard Feeney's alleged interpretations and the Letter of the Holy Office(LOHO) 1949 theology and reasoning are now meaningless.Since we know that we cannot reject Newton's Laws on physical bodies, when supporting a theology or philosophy.In the realm of space, time and matter there are no invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) do not exist. So how can distinctions, rules and categories be made regarding people who do not exist.It is the same with Vatican Council II's LG 8, LG 14, LG 16,NA 2, GS 22 etc.
It's meaningless, with reference to EENS, when LG 8 says 'This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in
the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by
the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of
sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.
These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces
impelling toward catholic unity.' There are no objective physical bodies of non Catholics saved outside the Church, where the true Church allegedly subsists.This is the physical reality.
The following passage is rational but it is not related to EENS.No physical exceptions can be mentioned here.
This sentence and the correct meaning of "subsists in" affects the definition of the Church with important implications for how the Catholic Church views itself, its relations with other Christian communities and other religions. Questions have been raised about whether Lumen gentium altered the longstanding phrase according to which the Church of Christ is (Latin est) the Catholic Church. Lumen gentium does recognize that other Christian ecclesial communities have elements of sanctification and of truth.-Wikipedia 1
This is another arguement at the intellectual level. In reality there can be no physical bodies which contradict the laws of Newton.No one can be projected as an exception to EENS. No one saw St.Emerentiana in Heaven without the baptism of water.
Who among us can create rules regarding when and how a non Catholic will be saved outside the Church with 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) in other religions, or where the true Church of Christ subsists.?
How can we speculate in personal cases in an area known to only God? How can we judge the heart of someone and then say he or she is an exception to the rule?
All these arguments are there at the intellectual, subjective level while physically there cannot be any exception to traditional EENS. The LOHO arguments seem rational but they cannot be projected as exceptions to the dogma EENS. So LOHO was wrong to criticize Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center.-Lionel Andrades
1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsistit_in
______________________________________
______________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
