November 9, 2014 at 12:55 am #5290
I read the cardinal’s words at the link above. The words do not represent the Catholic faith. In days of sanity, the cardinal would be censured by the Holy Office and given a chance to correct himself or be excommunicated.
We’re a long way from sanity these days.November 11, 2014 at 1:21 pm #5291
Dear Matthew and Craig V.
This is the kind of thing that makes us stop and pray and re-focus on our source of Hope–the Promises of Our Lord. You’re right, it’s hard to take, like a gut-kick. But it’s good to know where the devil’s got his hooks, so we know from which direction the bullets are likely to come, and so we can pray specifically for the conversion of these duped or given-over prelates.
Thanks for the work, we appreciate it.
Here’s the link so it’s on page 3, too.
http://theradicalcatholic.blogspot.ch/2014/11/cardinal-marx-on-church.htmlNovember 12, 2014 at 8:39 am #5297
But, more importantly, we should inquire as to whether the Vatican itself still recognizes the erroneous nature of these propositions.
Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) says all need faith and baptism for salvation.It is referring to Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. This is the traditional ordinary means of salvation.
Protestants do not have Catholic Faith, the Sacraments and the faith and moral teachings of the Church necessary for salvation.
So though they have good things in their religion, the religion is not a path to Salvation without the Catholic Sacraments etc through which God
So Vatican Council II is in agreement with Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) in which it is said that schismatics and heretics (Orthodx Christians and Protestants) need to convert into the one , true Church to avoid the fires of Hell.November 12, 2014 at 8:53 am #5298
The concept of “partial communion” can only be adhered to if one rejects the constant Church teaching on the supernatural virtue of faith
The concept of partial communion (UR 3) is necessary when it is wrongly assumed that there is known salvation, without the baptism of water, among non Catholics in the present times.This is meaningless but very real hypothtesis used in the Church.
In 1949 they assumed that there was known salvation outside the Church in the Boston Case i.e someone saved without faith and baptism.They assumed that a persons saved with the baptism of desire for instance, was an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.So Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrongly censured.There is no explicit exception to Fr.Leonard Feeney’s concept of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Since then this theory (Cushingism)refers has become a new doctrine. It refers to explicit exceptions, in the Catholic Church, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This was a break with the three Councils which defined the dogma.
It was irrational theology.Since we cannot see or know someone saved outside the visible limits of the Church i.e without faith and baptism.
However since 1949 it is being taught wrongly in the Catholic Church that there is salvation outside the Church and so every one does not need to convert.
So those who are allegedly saved as such (and not known to us) are said to to be in ‘partial communion ‘ with the Church.It is a meaningless term. Since there cannot be someone in partial communion with the Church who is an exception to the dogma which says all need to convert into the Church including ‘heretics and schismatics’ (Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441).
The term ‘partial communion'(UR 3) is useful for Jimmy Akins since he rejects the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( according to Fr.Leonard Feeney) and assumes there are known exceptions in the present times.November 14, 2014 at 3:37 am #5312
Just to clear things up, the fact that so-called neo-catholics may interpret the statement from LG 14 – ” 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” – to mean, in part, that a person would be held blameless for not entering the Church because that person was unable to convince himself of the Church’s claim does not mean that this interpretation is valid or correct.
In this particular instance, the issue involves a simple declarative statement – “the Church was made necessary by Christ [for salvation]”. This statement is NOT the result of reasoning but a statement of fact. As a result, to argue that “knowing that” may encompass cognitive activities more complex than simple awareness of the claim is
misleading. Since it is a simple statement of fact, ‘knowing that” should be interpreted as “aware of the fact that”. If a person is aware of the fact that the Church was made necessary by Christ for salvation and does not enter the Church, that person cannot be saved.
Referring to the Latin original also bolsters this interpretation and renders it authoritative – “Quare illi homines salvari non possent, qui Ecclesiam Catholicam a Deo per Iesum Christum ut necessariam esse conditam non ignorantes, tamen vel in eam intrare, vel in eadem perseverare noluerint.” A more literal translation of this sentence would read as follows – “Hence, those persons would not be able to be saved, who are not ignorant of the fact that the Catholic Church was built by God through Jesus Christ as to be indispensable, and either refuse to enter her or refuse to persevere in her.” It is clear from this more literal translation that the latin original in no way suggests that a complex cognitive or reasoning process is involved – rather, the person is simply “not ignorant of the fact” – i.e., they have heard the claim (that the Catholic Church was made necessary by God for salvation) or have become acquainted with the claim.
In other words, to interpret the latin text to hold blameless those who are unable to convince themselves of the veracity of the claim that the Catholic Church was made necessary by God for salvation – is to read into the text words and concepts that simply do not appear there. The text nowhere suggests any extenuating circumstances. Rather, if a person is aware of the claim – they are duty-bound to enter the Church.
That such a clear and unequivocal statement was included in LG is hardly surprising because LG VII marked the beginning of the conciliar revolution and to get these documents approved it was necessary that they include orthodox statements of the faith.
Back to my suggestion. The orthodox statements in VII documents may be themselves sufficient to discredit the more outlandish claims of conciliar ecumaniacs. For example, in view of this sentence in LG 14 how can any “ecumenical” activity with our so-called “separated brethren” not start with the preaching that the Catholic Church is the unique ark of salvation established by Our Lord? Further, how can any ecumenical endeavor emphasize that our “separated brethren” have some aspects of truth when this may simply confirm them in their error so that they remain in their sect? The latin original of LG reminds us that the Church is indispensable so we do those outside the Church a grave disservice by in any way deemphasizing or obscuring their need to enter the Church for salvation.November 14, 2014 at 6:20 am #5313
For example, in view of this sentence in LG 14 how can any “ecumenical” activity with our so-called “separated brethren” not start with the preaching that the Catholic Church is the unique ark of salvation established by Our Lord?
Yes! It is LG 14 which is affirming the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Further, how can any ecumenical endeavor emphasize that our “separated brethren” have some aspects of truth when this may simply confirm them in their error so that they remain in their sect?
The bottom line is that they do not have Catholic Faith which is ncessary for salvation.
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 and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church-Lumen Gentium 14,Vatican Council II (EMPHASIS ADDED)
The reference is not to the faith of the Protestantsm, Orthodox Christians, Jehovah Witnesses and other who believe in Jesus, but to the Catholic Church.
The latin original of LG reminds us that the Church is indispensable so we do those outside the Church a grave disservice by in any way deemphasizing or obscuring their need to enter the Church for salvation.
The disservice is done when it is assumed that ‘whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it’ refers to visible in the flesh cases in the present times(2014).It is then wrongly concluded that these physically visible cases, who are now in Heaven, are visible exceptions to ‘the necessity of FAITH and baptism’ and ‘ the necessity of the Church’ Then Vatican Council II contradicts itself and becomes ambigous.
Without this error LG 14 and AG 7 are traditional and non- ambigous.November 14, 2014 at 6:32 am #5314
There are no cases known of someone saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.
None! As your name says.
In faith ( salvation) and morals ( mortal sin) we do not know any one who is in invincible ignorance to be an exception to the traditional teaching.November 14, 2014 at 6:51 am #5315
this new theology.
‘this new theology’ is based on invincible ignorance in faith and morals, being physically visible to us in the present times ( 2014) to be an explicit exception to the tradtional teaching.
So the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257-1260 says God is not limited to the Sacraments with reference to the baptism of water.In other words there are explicit exceptions.
In morals the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1857-1860 says ‘three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”(1857).It is as if we can know who has committed a mortal sin with full knowledge and deliberate consent. In other words they are explicit for us and so are exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.
The new theology is based on an irrational premise, the ability to see the dead who are in Heaven.
I cannot see any one on earth or Heaven who has been saved without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. I cannot see or know any exception to the dogma.
I cannot see or know any one who has died with grave sin as taught traditionally by the Church and who is in Heaven because he did not have ‘full knowledge’ etc. I cannot see or know any exception to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.
CCC 1257-1260 is a negation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the Nicene Creed ( I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin). This is Cushingism i.e assuming there are known exceptions to the dogma on salvation. The Catechism has not corrected the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 but repeated it.So LG 16,LG 8,UR 3 etc are wrongly interpreted to refer to the dead being visible on earth.It has to be inferred wronly independent of the text.The text does not repeat the error.
This is the irratonal, heretical new theology.November 14, 2014 at 6:58 am #5316
A fellow poster, Barbara, left this example on the main blog.
It SO clearly shows the disastrous fruits of the same misplaced mercy that fuels forbidden ecumenism, that we’re reposting here a reminder of what is at stake here, when we discuss the purpose of ancient prohibitions and rules. The source was someone writing in to Fr Z’s blog:
” I teach religious education at at Catholic school in the UK and my department just spent an hour discussing how we can best convey to the children that we and Pope Francis are disappointed that the synod didn’t change Church teaching, and that it’s inevitable and just a matter of time before the Church allows gay marriage, female priests, etc. I was specifically told by someone high up that there is no theological reason not to have female priests. Obviously, I won’t teach anything that contradicts Church teaching, and I may well get into a lot of trouble because of it.
There is ‘a new understanding’ of Vatican Council II.
Vatican Council II is traditional when salvation is understood to be physically invisible for us on earth: no problem for incardination among traditionalist priests
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/vatican-council-ii-is-traditional-when.htmlNovember 15, 2014 at 7:10 pm #5318
Lionel: “Vatican Council II is traditional when salvation is understood to be physically invisible for us on earth”
No offence, but the most one can do is squint ones eyes and stand on one’s head all to make V2 not heretical. And even that’s iffy. V2 used the language of the New Theology condemned by Pius XII (Humani generis paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16), is ambiguous by its very nature and is ipso facto NOT in line with tradition by its philosophical orientation, by its lack of precision and by what it leaves unsaid.
The documents either need to be burned symbolically by a pope in the square of Saint Peters, or as one bishop called for, a syllabus of errors of V2 needs to be issued. I’d take both.November 16, 2014 at 1:34 am #5319
@Lionel and CraigV: The point of emphasizing the orthodox statements in LG 14 was then to compare them to the ambiguous statements elsewhere in the VII documents. Compare the paragraph from LG 14 reproduced again here:
“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 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.” (LG 14)
with these paragraphs from Unitatis Redintegratio:
“It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life – that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God’s gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.” (UR 3)
So the Council in LG 14 first teaches that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation, and then says in UR 3 that Our Lord himself has not refrained from using the sects as “means of salvation”. Of course, the Conciliar innovators made sure they modified this statement in UR by claiming that the efficacy of the means of salvation in the sects derives from the grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church. But if the sects can be means of salvation themselves how can the Church be either necessary, indispensable or the unique ark of salvation?
Of course, one can interpret these apparently contradictory statements in an orthodox manner, but the Council provided neither definitions nor anathemas to help guide the faithful regarding how they should understand these possibly contradictory statements.
Further, the Council muddied the waters even more in the second paragraph of UR 3 reproduced above by stating: “For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is ‘the all-embracing means of salvation,’ that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation.” Now, if they had used the traditional formulation, that the Church is the unique ark of salvation established by Our Lord (which is mentioned in LG 14!), this statement would be self-contradictory on its face. It is contradictory to state that the Church is the unique ark of salvation on one hand (LG 14) and then to state that the sects can nonetheless still be “means of salvation” on the other (UR 3)! Apparently attempting to paper over this seeming contradiction, the innovators introduced the concept of a purported ability to “partially” benefit from a means of salvation Should we conclude from the “concept” of “partial benefit” that those who die in sects are only “partially saved”? Of course the concept of “partial salvation” is ridiculous, but that is what is implied by this sentence in UR 3.
From this we can conclude that the documents of VII contain both orthodox statements that ring like a Church bell and ambiguous statements that are difficult to understand in view of the orthodox statements. Possible interpretations of the ambiguous statements would clearly contradict the orthodox statements. This raises the question why the hierarchy have not sought to provide orthodox interpretations of the apparently contradictory statements in the documents. Further, it calls into question the good faith of the hierarchy when they demand that the faithful assent to the so-called spirit of VII when the VII documents themselves are ambiguous and subject to contradictory interpretations. Finally, if all these questions can be viewed as being in good faith, the mere fact that they can be asked begs the question whether VII was not a Council of the Church but a robber council.November 16, 2014 at 8:25 am #5320
Cyprian: “So the Council in LG 14 first teaches that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation, and then says in UR 3 that Our Lord himself has not refrained from using the sects as “means of salvation”. Of course, the Conciliar innovators made sure they modified this statement in UR by claiming that the efficacy of the means of salvation in the sects derives from the grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church. But if the sects can be means of salvation themselves how can the Church be either necessary, indispensable or the unique ark of salvation?”
They changed the meaning/understanding of “necessary.” Where before it meant it was necessary to be inside the church for salvation, the new meaning/understanding is that it is necessary that this church exists so that it can shoot out its rays of salvation to heretics, schismatic and unbelievers.
And yes…that’s a direct contradiction with the infallibly defined EENS dogma and stands in direct contradiction with the infallible declarations of Vatican One that mandated the same meaning and understanding of dogmas be maintained under pain of anathema.November 16, 2014 at 10:46 am #5321
More rubbish from Unitatis Reintegratio:
“The children who are born into these Communities [the sects] and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church – whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church – do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.”
Note the apparent bait-and-switch – the children cannot be accused of the sin of separation so the men “who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.” So apparently it is impossible according to this new development in doctrine for heretics ever to participate in the original sin of separation by embracing it as adults? Remember, all these statements have to be measured by the orthodox statements in LG 14 – those who know that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Our Lord for salvation and who refuse to enter it, cannot be saved. So as soon as the adult protestant becomes aware that the Church is the unique ark of salvation established by Our Lord they certainly can be accused of the sin of separation for not immediately entering the Church!
The reality is many in the sects are adult heretics who are fully aware that the Church is the unique ark of salvation established by Our Lord and the Catholic hierarchy actually encourages us to join with them in certain activities! These disciplines reek of kabbalistic subterfuge where the faithful are encouraged to unwittingly engage in activities that are inherently objectively offensive to the Almighty so those pulling the strings so to speak can manipulate the Almighty and bring His judgment down upon the unwitting faithful.
How can we unwittingly displease the Almighty? By remaining willfully ignorant of the fact that a discipline purportedly enacted by the “Church” can contradict the letter and the spirit of the revelation of Our Lord.
For example, Our Lord said “he who is not with me is against me and he who does not gather with me scatters.” So in one’s mind a catholic believes that the Church is the unique ark of salvation established by Our Lord but ignores this clear counsel and warning of Our Lord [he who is not with me is against me. . .] and continually gathers with those who are against the Lord because they reject His Church and do not gather with the Lord within the confines of His Church.
How can the unwitting and willfully ignorant Catholic avoid participating in some way in the sin of separation of the heretics he is gathering with and hence avoid the curse issued upon the unbelievers that they would scatter? At the very least Our Lord was certainly prophetic that those who do not gather with Him and His Church would scatter with upwards of 30,000 protestant sects and the divisions in the so-called Orthodox Churches! Note those so-called Catholics who vehemently advocate for these ecumenical gatherings have in many cases already brought the “scattering” curse down upon themselves because when queried they will reveal that they already are “soft” on some aspects of the faith and belief and, as a result, have already rejected the unity and integral aspects of the Catholic faith!November 16, 2014 at 12:24 pm #5322
Read this speech given by Pope Francis:
In the middle of the speech he states:
“When one walks in the presence of God, he is granted this brotherhood. When, on the other hand, we stop, we watch each other too closely, we are given another path… bad, bad! The path of gossip. And it begins: “But don’t you know?”; “No, no, I don’t know about you. I know about here and there…”; “I belong to Paul”; “I belong to Apollo”; “I belong to Peter”…. And thus they begin, from the first moment division begins in the Church. And it isn’t the Holy Spirit who creates division! He makes something which seems rather like it, but not division. It isn’t the Lord Jesus who creates division! He who creates division is actually the envious one, the king of envy, the father of envy: that sower of weeds, Satan. He barges in on the community and creates division, always. From the first moment, from the first moment of Christianity, there has been this temptation in the Christian community. “I am this; “I am that”; “No! I am the Church, you are the sect”…. And thus who acquires us is he, the father of division. Not the Lord Jesus, who prayed for unity (Jn 17), he prayed!”
So apparently according to Pope Francis being concerned about whether you are in the Church or in a sect is unnecessarily divisive! But how can this be? If the Church IS the unique ark of salvation it would seem that it is of paramount importance that we be within it! After all that is what LG 14 teaches, isn’t it? So we better be concerned with whether the “faith community” we find ourselves in is the Church or a false sect!
Note also in this speech he cites to 1 Corinthians 12. Interestingly, 1 Corinthians 11 has an interesting statement about the mystery of division:
“For first of all I hear that when you come together in the church, there are schisms among you; and in part I believe it. For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you.” 1 Corinthians 11: 18 – 19.
The mystery of division is that although those who participate in it are sinning by separating themselves from the Church it serves a purpose so that those “who are approved may be made manifest among you.” Note to Pope Francis: this passage clearly insinuates the inherent separateness of truth and falsehood and that those who do not hold onto and persevere in the truth are not approved! So again it seems of paramount importance to be able to distinguish between the Church and sects!
Read also the passage in the speech where he confuses differing charisms within the Church with purported charisms held by “faith communities” outside the Church:
“What does the Holy Spirit make? I said he makes something else, which one might think of as division, but it isn’t. The Holy Spirit creates “diversity” in the Church. The First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 12. He creates diversity! It’s true this diversity is so rich, so beautiful. But then, the same Holy Spirit creates unity, and this way the Church is one in diversity. And, to use a beautiful word of an Evangelist whom I love very much, a diversity “reconciled” by the Holy Spirit. He does both these things: he creates the diversity of charismata and then makes harmony of the charismata. For this the first theologians of the Church, the first fathers — I’m talking about the third or fourth century — said: “The Holy Spirit, He is harmony”, because He creates this harmonic unity in diversity.”
So apparently the Pope loves differing charisms, just as long as they are outside the Church, for one need only ask the FFI how the Pope feels about their traditional charism!
Finally, as an aside, it is interesting to note that the last portion of 1 Corinthians 11 that immediately precedes 1 Corinthians 12 also has to do with the worthy reception of Holy Communion – “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.” This is a conundrum – did Pope Francis skip over 1 Corinthians 11 before getting to 1 Corinthians 12 that he made mention of in this speech? Or is it because the first part of 1 Corinthians 11 has to do with women covering their heads when in Church so that he felt he was at liberty to throw the rest of 1 Corinthians 11 out and hence miss out on its teachings regarding the necessity of division and the worthy reception of communion? One wonders.November 17, 2014 at 4:04 am #5323
No offence, but the most one can do is squint ones eyes and stand on one’s head all to make V2 not heretical.
Lionel: It is heretical if the premise is used in the interpretation.
The premise is “There are dead persons who are now in Heaven and they are visible to us. They include those saved with the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance, imperfect communion with the Church etc” So the conclusion is “These cases of the visible-dead are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the rest of Tradition”.
So LG 16,LG 14,LG 8,UR 3, NA 2 etc become ‘known’ exceptions to Tradition.
Without the premise mentioned above, there is nothing in Vatican Council to change the traditional teaching on other religions and Christian communties.
And even that’s iffy. V2 used the language of the New Theology condemned by Pius XII (Humani generis paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16), is ambiguous by its very nature and is ipso facto NOT in line with tradition by its philosophical orientation, by its lack of precision and by what it leaves unsaid.
The documents either need to be burned symbolically by a pope in the square of Saint Peters, or as one bishop called for, a syllabus of errors of V2 needs to be issued. I’d take both
Lionel: The interpretations of Vatican Council II with the premise need to be burned in the piazza. I agree.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.