Fr.Paolo Boumis has confirmed that there are no visible cases in 2023 of a non Catholic saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance and this would also be the view of the priests and lay religious in the parish and also his bishop.
His agreement on this particular
point indicates that the auxiliary bishops of Rome and the Cardinal-Vicar
General of Rome, Angelo Donatis hold the same position. There are no physically
visible cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church in the present times.
In our correspondence via e-mail he agrees that
if anyone was saved outside the Church it could only be known to God. We cannot
see or meet any such person in real life. This is something obvious and even a
non Christian or a school boy would agree.
So his bishop and the auxiliary bishops of Rome
would agree with him when he says that LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc
refer to only hypothetical and invisible cases in the present times.This is common sense. One does not have to know Catholic theology to understand this.
When the Curia of the Rome Vicariate and Fr Boumis,
the parish priest at the church San Agapito, Rome say there are no physically
cases of the baptism of desire, being saved in invincible ignorance etc, there are implications. There are conclusions. They are the same as mine.
The red is not an exception for the blue for
them, when they interpret Vatican Council II, Ad Gentes 7.
The passage in red refers to hypothetical and
invisible cases in 1965-2023. The passage in red does not contradict the
orthodox passage in blue which supports the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla
salus (EENS).It is the same with the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846-848 etc.
So when the auxiliary bishops of Rome and the religious and lay people in the parish of Sant Agapito, affirm Vatican Council II rationally (LG 16 etc refer to hypothetical cases only), there are conclusions.
There are the following conclusions.
1. When I interpret the Council rationally Fr. Paulo and his bishop cannot correct me. They know I am correct.
2. It
means that the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of
Boston, relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney (LOHO), made a mistake. The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance do not
contradict Feeneyite EENS.It should not contradict
Feeneyite EENS for the Vicariate for Fr. Paolo Boumis.
3.
Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar, Bea, Balthazar, Lefebvre and Kung made a mistake
when they did not correct the error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney (LOHO). Instead they
repeated it at Vatican Council II.
4. For me, there was nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict Feeneyite EENS.There were no exceptions for the EENS of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).They would have to agree with me.
5. So I was telling Fr. Paulo that when he has his catechesis for adults in the parish this month, he will interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with EENS. In my catechesis, the the Council has a continuity with EENS and the rest of Tradition. For him LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc would refer to 1) physically visible cases; 2) known people saved outside the Church and 3) practical exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed etc.It is only with this irrationality that he could create a break with Tradition.
For me LG 8, 14, 16 etc would refer to invisible cases, unknown and invisible people and so they are not exceptions for the past ecclesiocentrism, the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
6. I informed the parish priest that I was affirming all Magisterial Documents which I interpreted rationally (invisible people are invisible, LG 16 etc refer to invisible cases in 2023).While he accepted all Magisterial Documents and interpreted them irrationally. He has not denied this.
7. It was difficult for Fr. Paulo to accept that his teaching of Vatican Council II, supported by the whole Church, was not Magisterial. Yet he could not deny that the BOD and I.I are always invisible.
8.Twenty years back in the parish I was told that BOD and I.I were exceptions for EENS. Now 20 years later they can no more say this. Neither can they deny that their interpretation of Vatican Council II : is not Magisterial.
8. All the priests of the Missionaries of Charity, Contemplative Men, in the parish, and the Missionaries of Charity Religious Sisters of Mother Teresa, at nearby Casilina, where they have their formation house, would agree with Don Paulo and the Rome Vicariate.So they would also agree with me in my interpretation of Vatican Council II. Our premise and inference would be the same. So the conclusion would be traditional.
9. Since Vatican Council II, in LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc has no exceptions for EENS and the Athanasius Creed, they are all saying, presently, that all non Catholics in general are oriented to Hell without faith and the baptism of water (AG 7).Non Catholic religions are not paths to salvation ( LG 14, CCC 845,846).They will have to interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church rationally (845,846).
10.So when they meet non Catholics and non Chistians they would know that they are oriented to Hell without Catholic faith and the baptism of water (AG 7 etc).LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 would not be exceptions.
There are good things in other religions ( NA 2 etc) but the other religions are not paths to salvation ( AG 7, CCC 845,846 etc).
-Lionel Andrades
THE RED IS NOT AN EXCEPTION FOR THE BLUE
14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart."(12*) All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.- Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II
THE RED IS NOT AN EXCEPTION FOR THE BLUE
THE RED IS NOT AN EXCEPTION FOR THE BLUE
Catechism of the Catholic Church 846-848
"Outside the Church there is no salvation" 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
- Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
- Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
-Catechism of the Catholic Church 846-848
THE RED IS NOT AN EXCEPTION FOR THE BLUE
DOMINUS IESUS
________________________________
THE RED IS NOT AN EXCEPTION FOR THE BLUE
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there
is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church...
which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth...
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.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
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. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).
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.
OCTOBER 1, 2023
OCTOBER 1, 2023
Il parroco è d'accordo con me. Non ci sono casi visibili di essere salvati nell'ignoranza invincibile e nel battesimo del desiderio nei tempi attuali.
OCTOBER 1, 2023
Parish priest agrees with me. There are no visible cases of being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire in the present times
Yesterday I spoke with Father Paulo Boumis, the parish priest at the church San Agapito, in Rome. He had no objections when I said that the baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) referred to invisible cases. They are always hypothetical.He agreed with me.
This point is central in my writing.
So he agrees with me when I say that the BOD and I.I are not exceptions for the traditional strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
In 2003 I was living at the Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity (contemplative) home for men, which is in this parish. At that time I believed in the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and I knew that this teaching could not be changed. Yet Lumen Gentium 16 contradicted it. So EENS was obsolete in Rome for Cardinal Ratzinger.
Over time, with the help of Jesus, Our Lady and my Guardian Angel, I had an insight.This was was confirmed by a priest. I realized that LG 14, LG 16 etc, were always hypothetical. So the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney (LOHO), made a mistake. The BOD and I.I do not contradict Feeneyite EENS.
Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar, Bea, Balthazar, Lefebvre and Kung made a mistake when they did not correct the error in the 1949 LOHO. Instead they repeated it at Vatican Council II. It seems as if they wanted to do away with the dogma EENS, in any way possible.
For me, there was nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict Feeneyite EENS.There were no exceptions for the EENS of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).
HIS CATECHESIS IS A RUPTURE WITH THE PAST MINE IS A CONTINUITY
So I was telling Fr. Paulo that when he has his catechesis for adults in the parish this month, he will interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with EENS. In my catechesis, the the Council has a continuity with EENS and the rest of Tradition. For him LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc would refer to 1) physically visible cases; 2) known people saved outside the Church and 3) practical exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed etc.It is only with this irrationality that he could create a break with Tradition.
For me LG 8,14,16 etc would refer to invisible cases, unknown and invisible people and so they are not exceptions for the past ecclesiocentrism, the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
ITNERPRETING VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH FEENEYISM OR CUSHINGISM
To get a handle on this concept and explain it more easily, I called, confusing invisible cases as being visible, Cushingism.Fr. Paulo was a Cushingite like the popes from Paul VI to Francis. When invisible cases are seen as just being invisible, I call it Feeneyism. I interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism and not Cushingism.I realize that I am the only one in the parish interpreting Vatican Council II rationally.The others in the parish interpret Vatican Council II irrationally like the popes and the Prefects of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith ( formerly CDF), Vatican.
THE PARISH PRIEST INTERPRETS MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS IRRATIONALLY
I informed the parish priest that I was affirming all Magisterial Documents which I interpreted rationally ( invisible people are invisible, LG 16 etc refer to invisible cases in 2023).While he accepted all Magisterial Documents and interpreted them with irrationally.
POPE PIUS XII NOT MAGISTERIAL ON BOD AND I.I- INTERPRETATION
The 1949 LOHO was not Magisterial when it projected BOD and I.I as being exceptions for EENS. I can accept the first part of LOHO which affirmed traditional EENS. Since the second part is irrational and contradicts the first part it cannot be Magisterial.The conclusion of the 1949 LOHO is that everyone does not need to be a member of the Church for salvation. This is heretical and schismatic.
It is a break with the pre-1949 Magisterium of the Catholic Church which upheld the traditional exclusivist interpretation of EENS.
When Pope Pius XII allowed the 1949 LOHO to project invisible cases of BOD and I.I as being physically visible exceptions for EENS it was not Magisterial.So Vatican Council II is not Magisterial when it is interpreted with this irrational reasoning.
So the priests in the parish, because they accept the error in the LOHO, will be interpreting Vatican Council II as a break with 'the faith of the Fathers'.For them there is rupture at every Mass, rite and liturgy. This is expected when they accept the New Theology of the LOHO which is based upon the fake premise. I avoid the false premise. With the rational premise I return to the Old Theology and the teachings of the saints, popes, Church Fathers and Apostles.
It was difficult for Fr. Paulo to accept that his teaching of Vatican Council II, supported by the whole Church, was not Magisterial. Yet he could not deny that the BOD and I.I are always invisible.
Twenty years back in the parish I was told that BOD and I.I were exceptions for EENS. Now 20 years later they can no more says this.Neither can they deny that their interpretation of Vatican Council II is not Magisterial.
I- Lionel Andrades
https://parrocchiasantagapito.jimdofree.com/attivit%C3%A0-orari-e-contatti/
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/10/parish-priest-agrees-with-me-there-are.html
No comments:
Post a Comment