I affirm all
the teachings of the Catholic Church but I only interpret Church documents with
the rational premise. So there is no rupture with the past Magisterium and
Catholic Tradition.
1.I affirm the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which
is not contradicted by the second half for me.Since the baptism of desire and
invincible ignorance refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases only in 2021.
They could not have been practical exceptions to Feenyite EENS in 1949. Pope
Pius XII and the popes who followed made an objective mistake.The present popes
continue with the mistake and expect all Catholics to follow them.So the
interpretation of Vatican Council II by the College of Cardinals is also
irrational and non Magisterial.
2.I affirm the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24 Q, 29 Q) on other
religions.It is not contradicted by that same Catechism mentioning those who
are saved in invincible ignorance. Similarly I affirm Ad Gentes 7 ( all need
faith and baptism for salvation) which is not contradicted by Lumen Gentium 16
(invincible ignorance).LG 16 is always a hypothetical case.Only God can know if
someone is saved in invincible ignorance.LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 are always
hypothetical.So they do not contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the
Church.
3.Similarly the Vatican Council II, Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis
Redintigratio 3, is always hypothetical.So does not contradict the past
ecumenism of return or the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.
4.Similarly I affirm the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic
faith for salvation.I do not know of any practical exception in the present
times.
5.I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam
nulla salus and I accept hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire,
baptism of blood and invincible ignorance. I do not have to reject them.Since
they can only be hypothetical, always.
6.I affirm the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846 Outside the Church No
Savation) with Ad Gentes 7 saying all need faith and baptism. I do not know of
any exception.There is no exception mentioned in the phrase , ' all who are
saved are saved through Jesus and the Church'.The priority is membership in the
Catholic Church, with 'faith and baptism' to avoid Hell ( for salvation).We do
not separate Jesus from His Mystical Body the Catholic Church.The norm for
salvation is faith and baptism.
7.Similarly I know that 'the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude
other than the baptism of water'(CCC 1257) and that there are no practical
exceptions.Theoretically 'God is not limited to the Sacraments', and
practically all need the baptism of water and Catholic faith,always, to avoid
Hell.There are no practical exceptions for the norm for salvation.
8.In the Nicene Creed, we say 'one baptism for the forgiveness of sins'.
This refers to one baptism, the baptism of water, which is physically visible.
I cannot administer the baptism of desire and it is not known to us human
beings.So there is one baptism and not three or more known baptisms.There are
no known baptisms which exclude the baptism of water.There is no literal
baptism of desire, as says, Bishop Athanasius Schneider in the recent interview
with Dr. Taylor Marshall.
9.So the Four Marks of the Church( one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic) must
include affirming all Church documents with the rational and not irrational
premise.
10.In the Apostles Creed, we say "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the
Holy Catholic Church".The Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church even
today, to say that outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation.This
would be interpreting the Apostles Creed with the rational premise.Otherwise
the Creed would be saying outside the Church there is known salvation.
11.Vatican Council II is dogmatic and supports traditional EENS, with LG 8,
LG 16 etc not being practical exceptions in the present times.
For Pope Paul VI, Vatican Council was
pastoral and not dogmatic, since he used the false premise to create a break
with the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors etc.If he had interpreted the
Council with a rational premise then the Council would also be dogmatic in
1965.It would make Fr. John Courtney Murray sj, Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, Fr. Yves
Congar op and Fr. Karl Rahner sj unable to theologicallysupport their
liberalism.There would not be a New Theology.
12.Since the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance
are always hypothetical, theoretical and speculative only, they do not
contradict the Church's traditional ecclesiocentrism.
These are the teachings of the Catholic
Church which I affirm and the priests in the parish are unable to do the same.
St. Alphonsus Liguori, father of
Catholic moral theology,says that if a priest is in public mortal sin, do not
go up to receive the Eucharist. Since it would be a sin against faith and
charity. He is on the way to Hell and you are telling him all is well.
The priest must end the
scandal.(Teologia Moralis Bk.3, N.47)
In my parish, Santa Maria di Nazareth,
Casalotti, Boccea Rome the priests have a problem with the Creeds,
Catechisms and other Magisterial documents, just like Pope Francis.They are in
public schism. So I do not go up to receive the Eucharist, at Holy Mass in
Italian.
Pastorally, they allow this situation to
continue. -Lionel Andrades
The false premise is:-
1. Invisible people are visible.
2.Unknown case of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are personally known.
3.The unknown case of the catechumen who desired the baptism of water but dies before he received it and is saved, is a personally known person.
4.There is known salvation outside the Catholic Church for us human beings.
5.We can see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water.
6.We can physically see non Catholics in Heaven and on earth who are saved without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7).
7.There are non Catholics who are dead- men visible and walking who are saved outside the Church.
8.There are known people in invincible ignorance through no fault of their own, who are saved.
9.There are some Anglicans and Protestants whom we know who are going to Heaven even though they are outside the Catholic Church.
10.There are some non Catholics whom we know, who are dead, and now are in Heaven, even though they were not Catholic.
With the false premise there are 'objective exceptions' to EENS. There are visible exceptions to the Athanasius Creed, the Nicene Creed is changed, there is a new understanding of the Nicene Creed etc :-
1. The Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation is contradicted.
2. The Nicene Creed in which we say, 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' over the centuries referred to only one known baptism, the baptism of water.The baptism of desire etc cannot be given to someone like the baptism of water.But now the understanding is ' I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins ( desire,blood and ignorance) and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church'.
3. The Apostles Creed says ' we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church'. Over the centuries it was understood that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church and taught that there was no salvation outside the Church.Now unknown cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, and LG 8, UR 3, NA2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, are assumd to be objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
4.In the past three Church Councils defined the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in the extraordinary Magisterium .It was an 'infallible teaching' for Pope Pius X( Letter of the Holy Offie 1949).Now it is obsolete with their being alleged known salvation outside the Church.
5.Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are interpreted with the false premise so they become a rupture with EENS( Feeneyite), the Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc.
6.With the false premise the Catechism of Pope Pius X contradict itself. It affirms the strict interpretation of EENS while invincible invincible ignorance is intepreted as referring to personally known non Catholics saved outside the Chuch.Invincible ignorance is not seen as a hypothetical case only.
7.Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus, Ecclesia in Asia, Balamand Declaration etc were all written upholding the false premise. They did not support exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. So in a subtle way they contradicted EENS(Feeneyite), the Athanasius Creed etc. They did not support the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.They are Christological without the traditional ecclesiocentric ecclesiology. It's Christ without the necessity of membership in the Catholic Church for salvation.
8. Traditional mission based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church is rejected. Since with the false premise, there is salvation outside the Church.
9.Inter faith marriages which are not Sacraments are common held.It is no more adultery. Since the non Catholic spouse could be saved outside the Church it is assumed. A posibility which could only be known to God is assumed to be a practical exception to EENS and a literally known case of salvation outside the Church in a personal case.
10. There is a new heretical ecclesiology at Holy Mass in all the rites and liturgies. The Latin Mass today does not have the same exclusivist ecclesiology of the Tridentine Rite Mass of the missionaries in the 16th century.