Home Forum Mortalium Animos Louie Verrecchio and Jimmy Akin

This topic contains 53 replies, has 11 voices, and was last updated by  Helenrose234 1 year, 7 months ago.

Viewing 9 posts - 46 through 54 (of 54 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #5324

    Cyprian:
    @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.
    Lionel:
    Above is the orthodox passage.
    Below is the ‘ambigous’ passage only if you are using the premise.

    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)

    1.Irrational premise: We KNOW who knows or does not ‘know’. We humans on earth, KNOW who is to be saved with the baptism of desire or without it. Since we know, who is going to be saved as such, since we can judge, this is a reference to a known case and so is a known exception to Tradition ( extra ecclesiam nulla salus etc)
    Conclusion: The above passage is a break with Tradition.

    2.Without the irrational premise: It is only God knows who ‘knows’ or does not know. These cases are invisible and unknown in particular cases, for us human beings .So they are not exceptions to Tradition.They do not exist in our reality to be relevant to Tradition.

    Conclusion: The above passage does not contradict the orthodox one.
    ________________________________________________


    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)

    Lionel: The same as above. It is the premise which decides if the passage is a break with Tradition.
    _____________________________________________

    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?

    Lionel: Keep the text of the dogma before you.Then ask yourself if there are any known exceptions in the text which you consider ambigous. There will be none.

    Here is the dogma.
    ◦“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
    ◦“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
    ◦“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
    http://catholicism.org/category/outside-the-church-there-is-no-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.

    Lionel: The rule is the same. Keep the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus before you and see if there are any defacto exceptions mentioned in the text which you find ambigous.
    1. Does the passage says that there are explicit cases?
    2.Or does the passage say that these cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma?
    No it does not.

    Similarly keep the orthodox passages before you and ask yourself if there is any passage which contradicts it. This would mean there would have to be a passage which refers to 1)explicit cases or 2) states these cases are exceptions to Tradition .

    We can also look at it from the defacto dejure perspective. We have the orthodox passage and we have the ‘ambigous’ passage which refers to dejure cases, accepted in principle, as possibilities.Since they are dejure and not defacto cases, i.e referring to cases known in 2014, they are not exceptions to the orthodox passages.

    So it is important to be aware of the dejure, defacto, invisible, visible distinction.
    _______________________________________

    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.
    Lionel: The ambigous statements are ambigous because :
    1) they are considered to be defacto instead of dejure, visible instead of visible.
    2)It is because the irrational premise is being used in the interpretation.

    _________________________________________________

    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.

    Lionel: No one is discussing the issue of the false premise used in the interpretation, the mix up of dejure and defacto cases.
    The traditionalists have not brought up this subject with the hierarchy.

    #5325

    CraigV:
    Cyprian: “So the Council in LG 14 first teaches that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation,
    Lionel:
    Correct.
    and then says in UR 3 that Our Lord himself has not refrained from using the sects as “means of salvation”.

    Lionel:
    Yes and this passage is not an exception to the orthodox one above.
    It would be exception if you considered these cases as being visible to us in the present times i.e de facto, known cases in 2014.
    _________________________________________________

    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?”

    Lionel:
    If someone is saved in the sects it would not be known to us in 2014 .It would only be known to God.
    So this case would be irrelevant to all needing to enter the Church formally in 2014.
    This passage is not a contradiction to the dogma.Invisible cases cannot be defacto known exceptions to the dogma in the present time.

    ___________________________________________________

    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.

    Lionel:
    If someone is saved in another religion or a Christian sect he would be saved through Jesus and the Church. God would grant him the grace necessary to be a Catholic.
    God could send a preacher to him ( St.Thomas Aquinas).
    In general non Catholics are oriented to Hell without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water ( Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II, Cantate Domino Council of Florence 1441 etc).So if there is someone saved in another religion, he is not an exception to all needing Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation in 2014.
    We cannot meet or know an exception to the dogma in 2014.

    ______________________________________

    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.

    Lionel:
    Yes. Only if you consider these cases as being visible and known to us in 2014.
    Otherwise they are irrelevant to the dogma and Tradition.
    __________________________________________________

    #5326

    Cyprian:

    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.
    Lionel:
    O.K whoever they are they are our brothers and sisters and they are in imperfect communion with the Church. May God bless them and save them.
    This is not a contradictory passage with the dogma. Since these cases cannot be known to us in personal cases.
    Hypothethical- for- us cases cannot be known exceptions to the dogmatic teaching i.e all need to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation.

    _________________________________________________

    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.
    Lionel:It is acknowledged here in Vatican Council II that they are not in 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.”

    Lionel: Yes they are our brothers, they believe in Jesus, they have faith in Jesus, many of them would be better Christians than me, and we must work for ecumenism and unity- in the Catholic Church. We must hope that they all join the Catholic Church formally, the only Church Jesus founded, outside of which there is no salvation.
    __________________________________________________

    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.”

    Lionel: They are in imperfect communion and not in full ecclesiastical communion. They do not have Catholic Faith which include the Sacramenmts through which Jesus saves.In ecumenism we must tell them that we love them in Jesus and that we hope that they will be united in the Catholic Church, since this is what God the Father wants. Otherwise they risk going to Hell, like any Catholic, who is living in mortal sin.There are mortal sins of morals and faith too.
    ___________________________________________________

    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!

    Lionel:
    Every one needs to enter the Catholic Church with no exceptions. Defacto there cannot be any known exception in 2014.Those who are aware or not aware will be judged and known only to God.
    In general all need to enter the Church and not those whom we think know or do not know. We cannot judge.The norm is ‘faith and baptism’ (AG 7) and not ‘those who know’.

    ____________________________________________________

    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.

    Lionel:Everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation and God will judge who is in invincible ignorance and who is not .
    __________________________________________________

    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.

    Lionel:
    When the irrational premise is used, when the dejure-defacto, invisible -visble distinction is not made, then only, is there a contradiction with Tradition.

    _________________________________________________________

    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.

    Lionel:
    Yes.We have to clarify that there are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to Tradition.Those who assume that Vatican Council II is a break with the past ‘scatter’.
    ________________________________________________

    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?
    Lionel: There is the ‘dialogue of life’ when we live with non Catholics.
    When we are clear that Vatican Council II is not a break with the past, it is easier to affirm the faith.It is very useful to begin proclamation with Outside the Church there is no salvation.Then go on to show how the Council does not contradict the dogma.

    _______________________________________________

    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!

    Lionel: they have not been shown how Vatican Council II is traditional when the irrational premise is not used in the interpretation.

    #5327

    Craig
    In the midde of the speech he says..
    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!

    Lionel:
    Pope Francis, like most of the Jesuits rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They also interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise.
    He has also presented a kerygma without the necessity of membership in the Church for salvation.

    Some time back the pope said that one cannot find Jesus without the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and he cited St.Ignatius of Loyola.Elsewhere he has been critical of triumphalism. This is all confusion from the Vatican.
    _____________________________________________________

    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.

    Lionel: The pope has never affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in agreement with Vatican Council II. Instead it is otherwise.
    The pope does not support dogmas and doctrines it is reported. However for him, Vatican Council II is important. Since with the premise, Vatican Council II is a break with dogmas and doctrines.
    _________________________________________________

    #5328

    Did Vatican Council make a factual error ?

    There was a factual error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, In inferred that implicit desire (baptism of desire) and being saved in invincible ignorance are known and visible to us in the present times (1949).So it was concluded in 1949 that there were explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

    The dead who are now saved in Heaven were assumed to be explicit on earth. Yet it is a fact of life that we cannot see those saved in Heaven this year (2014).They are known only to God.To be an exception something or someone must exist in our reality and be different from what it is compared to.Those persons saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance do not exist in our reality.We do not even know if these cases are saved with the baptism of desire or without it.The text does not mention it.One can infer for example that a non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience (LG 16) is saved without the baptism of water or followed by the baptism of water in a way known only to God.So firstly we do not know who these cases are in particular and secondly, if they are saved with or without the baptism of water.

    However, either way, the baptism of desire with or without the baptism of water is not known to us, it is not visible on earth in personal cases in 2014. It cannot be seen. It cannot be repeated as with the baptism of water. It is not tangible.So the baptism of desire etc are fundamentally irrelevant to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.It is irrelevant and not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

    This was the fundamental error overlooked by Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston, and the Jesuits, who were active at Vatican Council II.

    All over Vatican Council II in so many passages we are allowed to infer that the dead now in Heaven, are visible and known to us .So it is concluded that these are explicit , visible in the flesh exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius X.The wrong inference can be made at AG7,AG 11,LG 11,UR 3,NA 2…

    Here is Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II.
    Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself “by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. -Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II

    So there can be an irrational or rational inference of Ad Gentes 7.
    A.
    ‘Therefore all must be converted to Him to whom is is made known by the Church’s preaching and who are visible and known to us on earth.As compared to all in general with Original Sin

    B.
    Therefore all must be converted to Him made known by the Church’s preaching ( these cases being obviously known only to God and unknown to us).

    The inference in A is based on a factual error.It assumes invisible for us cases are known in the present times.Then it is inferred that these unknown cases, being explicit, are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

    The Vatican Curia is interpreting Vatican Council II with the factual error (A).Bishop Marcello Semeraro, the bishop of Albano, is doing the same . He wants the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II with this irrational inference.

    I reject the Council with the irrational inference which results in a break with the past.This cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

    For me, Ad Gentes 7, is in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The phrase ‘made known by the Church’s preaching ‘ refers to someone known only to God. To infer that ‘made known by the Church’s preaching’ is relevant and an exception to the dogma on salvation and Tradition in 2014, is irrational.

    I do not want to reject the Council.I want to accept Vatican Council II aware that the Cushingite mistake can be avoided in the interpretation of LG 16,LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 etc.For me they (LG 16,LG 8 etc) refer to possibilities known only to God.They are not exceptions to the dogma.Also those who are saved as such, are saved followed by the baptism of water.

    All who are in Heaven are Catholics.There are only Catholics in Heaven.They have Catholic Faith and were baptized with water.If they were in invincible ignorance God would have sent sent a preacher to instruct them and batize them with water ( St.Thomas Aquinas).If they died without the baptism of water,God would send them back to earth only to be baptized with water (St.Francis Xavier).

    So there are passages in Vatican Council II which are orthodox and there are passages which seem ambiguous but which are not. They are ambiguous because they are being interpreted with an irrational premise.This irrational thinking comes from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case.

    Did Vatican Council II make a factual error ? No.Since even though there is text in Vatican Council II, which comes from a factual error in the Letter of the Holy Office, we can accept that this text refers to possibilities and not defacto cases, known in the present times.So they are irrelevant to the dogma and are not exceptions to Tradition.
    -Lionel Andrades
    _________________________________

    SSPX still clueless
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/sspx-still-clueless.html#links

    Popes have not checked this objective error. It is a fact of life that we cannot see the dead who are now in Heaven.
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/popes-have-not-checked-this-objective.html

    Is Bishop Semeraro willing to accept Vatican Council II in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? : SSPX has still to ask
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/is-bishop-semeraro-willing-to-accept.html

    This new theology http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/this-new-theology.html

    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.html

    Fr.Nicholas Gruner can ask the pope and the Vatican Curia, in a fresh complaint, to also affirm Vatican Council II in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus as he doeshttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/frgruner-can-ask-pope-and-vatican-curia.html

    Being saved in invincible ignorance has nothing to do with the dogma
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/being-saved-in-invincible-ignorance-has.html

    The ecclesiology of Pope Francis and Cardinal Kaspar is based on the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/the-ecclesiology-of-pope-francis-and.html

    Vatican II indicates all Muslims and other non Catholics are on the way to Hell since they do not have Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (Ad Gentes 7).
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/vatican-ii-indicates-that-all-muslims.html

    Cardinal Raymond Burke and Fr.Nicholas Gruner affirm the same error as do the liberals
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/cardinal-raymond-burke-and-frnicholas.html

    Cardinal Raymond Burke has still not identified the false premise, the irrational inference which is the cause of ‘the spirit of Vatican Council II’
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/cardinal-raymond-burke-has-still-not.html

    It is my right ( and yours too) to not use an irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, as do the Bologna School
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/it-is-my-right-and-yours-too-to-not-use.html

    All the speakers at the Fatima Mini Conference at Chicago this week to use an irrational inference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/all-speakers-at-fatima-mini-conference.html

    Fr.Nicholas Gruner has only to interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and the Council becomes traditional
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/frnicholas-gruner-has-only-to-interpret.html

    Why did Fr.Nicholas Gruner not just tell the pope that there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/why-did-frnicholas-gruner-not-just-tell.htm

    So if ‘the Church’ says that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma then where are these people who belong to the soul or body of the Church in 2014? Where are they? What are their names and surnames?
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/so-if-church-says-that-baptism-of.html

    I think ‘the dogma of the faith’ was lost in 1949 at Boston in the Fr.Leonard Feeney Case
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/in-think-dogma-of-faith-was-lost-in.ht

    John Vennari, Cardinal Kaspar and so many others are misinterpreting these Church documents and then repeating the error in Vatican Council II
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/john-vennari-cardinal-kaspar-and-so.html

    Cardinal Kaspar,John Vennari and Louie Verrecchio make the Council ambiguous
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/cardinal-kasparjohn-vennari-and-louie.html

    Bishop Athanasius Schneider makes the same error as John Vennari and Louie Verrechio
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/bishop-athanasius-schneider-makes-same.html

    John Vennari, Louie Verrecchio repeat the same error
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/john-vennari-louie-verrecchio-repeat.html

    In faith he assumes there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In morals he assumes there are known exceptions to mortal sin.
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/in-faith-he-assumes-there-are-known.html

    #5329

    Why is there a factual error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and not Vatican Council II?

    Since the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mentions being saved in invincible ignorance or with implicit desire as an exception to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center it makes a factual error. It infers that these cases are explicit for them to be exceptions.

    If the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 only mentioned being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire ( implicit desire) and left it at that there would be no factual error.

    It is a fact of life that we cannot see the dead who are in Heaven. So they cannot be considered exceptions to the traditional interrpetation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.They are possibilities but not exceptions.

    Vatican Council II mentions those saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) but does not state that these cases are explicit for us or that they are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

    We can accept LG 16,LG 8, UR 3 etc as refering to dejure and not defacto cases. They can be accepted in principle as possibilities for salvation followed by the baptism of water and Catholic faith. They can be accepted as invisible cases for us known only to God.

    When it is inferred that LG 16 etc are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus then it is a wrong inference. The fault lies with the person making the inference and not with the text of Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades

    Did Vatican Council make a factual error ?
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/did-vatican-council-make-factual-error.html

    Pope Pius XII made a factual mistake : ecclesiology of the Novus Ordo and Traditional Latin Mass are now the same http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/pope-pius-xii-made-factual-mistake.html

    Did Pope Pius XII make a mistake ? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/did-pope-pius-xii-make-mistake.html#links

    Did Pope Pius XII make a mistake ? : implicit desire, invincible ignorance have nothing to do with extra ecclesiam nulla salus http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/did-pope-pius-xii-make-mistake-implicit.html#links

    Catholic Religious indicate the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake :implicit desire etc is not visible to us http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/catholic-religious-indicate-letter-of.html#links

    #5345

    Cyprian
    Participant

    @Lionel: I appreciate your doggedness but I’m not sure if your position is factually true. In particular, you apparently argue that there is no problem with the VII documents as long as they are interpreted in light of tradition. It is my understanding that those more expert in the subject than either one of us do consider certain statements in the documents as irreconcilable with tradition. In particular, the portion from UR 3 I reproduced above that mentions the Holy Spirit has not refrained from using the sects as means of salvation contradicts the traditional teaching that the Church is the unique ark of salvation. In any case, I will reproduce the section here:

    “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)

    This section of UR 3 makes several claims that seem problematic. First, as already mentioned, that the sects have been used by Our Lord as means of salvation. Second, “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.” As I already stated, the second sentence seems to imply that those in sects can partially benefit from means of salvation when outside the Church, since, if they join the Church, they can benefit “fully” from the means of salvation. These statements appear self-contradictory on their face. For example, how can a means of salvation be divisible – it either is or is not a means of salvation. If the means of salvation available to those in the sects – even if it is not “full” – is nonetheless still saving, how can the Church be the “unique ark of salvation” or “necessary”?

    These statements from UR 3 appear to be irreconcilable with tradition unless they are interpreted in ways that undercut their literal meaning.

    #5346

    Cyprian:
    @Lionel: I appreciate your doggedness but I’m not sure if your position is factually true. In particular, you apparently argue that there is no problem with the VII documents as long as they are interpreted in light of tradition.
    Lionel:
    Yes as long as they are interpreted without the irrational premise, they will have the hermeneutic of continuity. This is factual and objective. It can be seen again and again.

    It is my understanding that those more expert in the subject than either one of us do consider certain statements in the documents as irreconcilable with tradition.
    Lionel:
    I know! However they are not aware of the irrational premise.

    In particular, the portion from UR 3 I reproduced above that mentions the Holy Spirit has not refrained from using the sects as means of salvation contradicts the traditional teaching that the Church is the unique ark of salvation.
    Lionel:
    The Church accepts the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible, with perfect contrition ect.These factors could exist among non Catholics or those seeking to become Catholic.The Holy Spirit could also be acting among non Catholics especially moving them towards knowledge of the Truth. The Holy Spirit could use aspects of a non Catholic’s religion to bring him or her to the truth.
    In the forum section of this blog, there is video of an ex Muslim Imam who converted into the Catholic Church, not through any priest or Catholic, but through reading the Quran and finding that things don’t add up.
    _________________________________________________

    In any case, I will reproduce the section here:

    “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.

    Lionel:
    This passage does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. If it does for the liberals, we do not have to use that interpretation.

    _________________________________________________

    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.
    Lionel:
    This passage is orthodox so there is no problem here.

    _______________________________________________________

    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)

    This section of UR 3 makes several claims that seem problematic.
    Lionel:
    The first passage which seems ambigous, is ambigous when it is inferred that cases of salvation referred to are known and visible to us and so are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Othewise it is not ambigous.
    If I was asked I would say that they refer to dejure cases accepted in theory, in principle only. They would of course be followed by the baptism of water, when they occur, since Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation.
    Anyway, I would say, hypothetical cases, with or without the baptism of water, are not defacto, objective, seen in the flesh exceptions to the dogma on salvation.
    So there is nothing in UR 3 to contradict Tradition.
    _______________________________________________

    First, as already mentioned, that the sects have been used by Our Lord as means of salvation.
    Lionel:
    One can wrongly interpret it as such and the liberals have done so but we can avoid it. Since it is an irrational interpretation.UR 3 does not claim that these cases are visible to us in 2014. This is what the liberals imply.

    ________________________________________________

    Second, “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.” As I already stated, the second sentence seems to imply that those in sects can partially benefit from means of salvation when outside the Church, since, if they join the Church, they can benefit “fully” from the means of salvation.
    Lionel:
    This would be irrational since UR 3 does not state these cases are explicit. So the liberal theology is based on an irrationality and we can avoid it.
    _____________________________________________________

    These statements appear self-contradictory on their face. For example, how can a means of salvation be divisible – it either is or is not a means of salvation. If the means of salvation available to those in the sects – even if it is not “full” – is nonetheless still saving, how can the Church be the “unique ark of salvation” or “necessary”?
    Lionel: I agree the liberal position is irrational. We can avoid it. Since we know there is a choice.
    _______________________________________________
    These statements from UR 3 appear to be irreconcilable with tradition unless they are interpreted in ways that undercut their literal meaning.

    Lionel:
    Correct, they are irreconciliable with tradition unless the irrational premise is avoided.Then UR 3 would be traditional.It would not contradict the dogma and it could be explained as referring to dejure ( in principle) cases accepted as possibilities known to God.They would also be followed by the baptism of water.
    The rational interpretation is Traditional.This is our advantage.

    #7397

    Helenrose234
    Participant

    MA is clear as it could be. The problem is that Novus Ordo Catholics will not obey anything written before 1962. Pope Pius X is an “integrist”.
    I wish the solution were education, but after fighting this battle for years, I have concluded that the problem is ill will. I’ve noticed some discomfort in this group due the heresies and heterodoxy of Francis. He is so off the wall, Papolaters are silent. Even they can’t defend the indefensible.

Viewing 9 posts - 46 through 54 (of 54 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.