Thursday, December 2, 2010

CRISIS EMERGING IN CATHOLIC PRO LIFE GROUPS: Human Life International, Priests for Life, Legionaries of Christ Univ.,Bio-Ethics Dept. DENY FAITH ON MISSION AND SALVATION

If Catholic pro-life organisations in principle ask Catholics to be faithful to Church teachings on abortion they themselves should be faithful to Church teachings on Catholic Mission and salvation-doctrine. There is an open denial of these teachings by Human Life International, Priests for Life and the Legionaries of Christ University (UPRA) Bio Ethics Department..

They choose a liberal, secular interpretation of the Catechism and Vatican Council II. They promote the progressivist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, instead of the traditional centuries old version.

Their message is : if extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) is open to change then so also are the Church teachings on pro-life issues and everything else e.g. Transubstantiation, Immaculate Conception of Our Lady etc.

Brian Clovis of the HLI has sent recommendations to the Vatican on the problem of homosexuality in seminaries. Yet HLI’s Interim President is not willing to affirm the defined dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.


Over the last few years Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life would not answer three basic questions about Catholic Mission and salvation. Neither would Fr. Thomas Euteneur former President of HLI answer those questions.

Neither would those three questions be answered at the Legionaries of Christ Regina Apostolorum University in Rome, where I studied and know the LC priests there.

1.

There are two versions of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Catholic pro life groups use the liberal secular one.
1. The Jewish Left media, secular version.
2. The traditional, centuries-old version.

The progressivist, liberal version (N.1 above) of extra ecclesiam nulla salus uses
1. A de facto-de facto analysis of the writings of the popes and Church Fathers.

2. Considers those saved in invincible ignorance as being known to us explicitly. So Lumen Gentium 16, for them, contradicts the dogma Cantate Domino.

3. Cannot provide any Magisterial text which indicates that the Church has retracted or changed extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The statements of the popes and Church Fathers are cited as 'proof ‘using the ' defacto- defacto' analysis. This is irrational, contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction and heretical since it contradicts an ‘infallible statement’ (Pope Pius XII, Letter of the Holy Office 1949); Cantate Domino.

1. The centuries old version.

There is no Church document which states that it has been retracted or changed.

The Catholic pro life groups chose N.1. They reject the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

2.


Pro Life groups use a liberal Interpretation (in general)


They assume that Cantate Domino and the rigorist interpretation of EENS are contradicted by: those saved in partial communion with the Church, or with perfect contrition, or the baptism of desire or blood and a good conscience.

Traditional interpretation (in general)

It is assumed that Cantate Domino and the rigorist interpretation of EENS are not contradicted by implicit salvation received when in partial communion with the church. Or perfect contrition known only to God hence not explicit but implicit baptism of desire or blood and a conscience which only Jesus can judge as ‘good’ on the Day of Judgment. Since they are all theoretical for us, just a concept, a probability we accept in principle it does not contradict Cantate Domino.

3.

Liberal Interpretation of Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium 16).

They interpret Lumen Gentium 16 as referring to explicit, knowable cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance or with a good conscience.

Traditional Interpretation of Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium 16)

If Lumen Gentium 16 refers to explicit, knowable-to-us, cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance then it contradicts Cantate Domino.

If LG 16 refers to those saved in invincible ignorance etc and which is known only to God then it does not contradict Cantate Domino. We have the traditional, centuries old interpretation.

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.-Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II.

The answer is known also through familiar common sense.If a First Communicant explains it clearly to you that only God can finally know who is saved in invincible ignorance that means there is no text in Vatican Council II which contradicts Cantate Domino.There is no Magisterial text, not LG 16 which contradicts Cantate Domino.

4.

Liberal Interpretation of Catechism (CCC 847 )

The pro life groups use the liberal interpretation of the Catechism (CCC 847) with a reference to those saved in invincible ignorance.

They suggest that those saved through invincible ignorance is explicitly known to us human beings. So it contradicts Cantate Domino and the rigorist interpretation of EENS:


847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

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.


Traditional Interpretation of Catechism (CCC 847)

Invincible ignorance is always implicit (hidden) and explicit (visible) for God only. We do not know a single case of a person saved in invincible ignorance etc.

CCC 847 and 848 refer to those saved with a good conscience or invincible ignorance and who are unknown to us human beings but only known to God. They are saved ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).So the ordinary way of salvation is the baptism of water with Catholic Faith; the explicit, formal means of salvation. The ordinary way of salvation for non Catholics according to the Letter of the Holy Office cannot be the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance or a good conscience.

5.
Liberal Interpretation of the Catechism (CCC 846).

Only those who know about Jesus and the Church and yet do not enter formally are on the way to Hell. Only those who know.

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 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. (Emphasis added)
Traditional Interpretation of the Catechism (CCC 846)


The Catechism’s reference to those who know about the Church and yet do not enter are oriented to Hell does not mean only those who know about the Church are on the way to Hell.


This is a liberal interpretation. It would contradict Cantate Domino and Tradition for centuries which said everyone needs to enter to avoid Hell.


This statement ‘ those who know and do not enter are oriented to Hell’ in contrast to those in invincible ignorance ae dejure ( in principle) statements. De facto only those who know are on the way to Hell will contradict Dominus Iesus 20 which says for salvation entry intoteh Church is necessary.


If it is de facto and not de jure it will contradict Ad Gentes 7 which says all people need Catholic Faith and the bapotism of water for slavtion.


This is all contrary to reason and logic and so how can the pro life groups promote it?


The Catechism 845,846 says everyone needs to enter the Church as through a door. This is the traditional teaching.

6.


Liberal interpretation does not affirm Cantate Domino and Dominus Iesus etc.


They do not affirm and agree with
1. Cantata Domino, Council of Florence, ex cathedra on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.


2. Dominus Iesus 20, Ad Gentes 7, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846 in accord with Cantate Domino.


Traditional Interpretation affirms Cantate Domino and Dominus Iesus


The Cantate Domino , Council of Florence, Vatican Council II and post Vatican Council II documents are in accord with Sacred Tradition.


7.
Liberal Interpretation of Canon Law.


How can a priest hold the post of President , Rector or Head of the Department of Bio-Ethics according to Catholic Canon Law? A juridical person according to Canon Law i.e. a Rector or President, has to be a Catholic.


This Canon Law regulation is overlooked.


Canon Law.


To reject an ex cathedra dogma makes a priest not eligible to hold a juridical position. Like wise the pro abortion groups are rejecting the relevant passages in Vatican Council II, Dominus Iesus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church etc and still remain in office.


8.


Liberals claim the Church has retracted extra ecclesiam nulla salus


They do not provide any Magisterial text to support there claim.

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus is still a Magisterial document.



9.


Liberal Interpretation of Church texts according to defacto defacto analysis.


For example

Pope Pius IX in an Allocution, December 9, 1854 wrote:

"We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?” –EWTN, Fr. William Most.
Catholic dissenters like Fr. Hans Kung say : Everybody de facto needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation and those who are in invincible ignorance are de facto known to us and so do not de facto have to enter the Church. So this is an exception to the ex cathedra Cantate Domino. It is also a rejection of the teaching of the infallibility of the pope says Fr.Kung. pro Life groups use the same analysis.




Pope Pius IX is saying de facto every one needs to enter the Church with no exceptions (Cantate Domino) and de jure there could be those saved in invincible ignorance etc and they would be known only to God.


For me it says: Everybody de facto needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no exceptions, de jure (in principle, as an acceptable concept) those in invincible ignorance of the true religion; the Catholic Faith can be saved, in ‘certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) and so they would be known to God only.


To interpret Pope Pius IX’s statement with a defacto-defacto analysis is contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.


Traditional defacto-dejure interpretation


Traditionally in the Church and in secular institutions a de facto-dejure analysis has been used. The words de facto and dejure are used in the Introduction to Dominus Iesus. It is explained in secular dictionaries and used in political science and jurisprudence over the years.


This is something objective and rational and not an issue of theology.

10.
 Progressivist mantra

The pro life groups hold the progressivist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It says 'everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation except those in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire etc.' This is the liberal, secular Jewish Left media mantra.


Note. 'Everyone needs to enter the Church' is left vague. It does not say ‘with no exception’. It then suggests that those saved with the Baptism of Desire or invincible ignorance is known to us explicilty and so everyone does not need to enter the Church. There could be people saved with the baptism of desire etc and who are explictly known to us and so they do not have to de facto enter the Church. It contradicts the first part of the statement. The second part of the mantra contradicts the first part. It also contradicts the dogma Cantate Domini.


Traditional interpretation


The traditional centuries-old interpretation of Cantate Domino indicates everyone with no exception needs to enter the Church to avoid Hell and go to Heaven. If anyone is saved with the Baptism of Desire etc it would be ‘in certain circumstances’ and known only to God.

11.

Liberals claim that the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is not infallible.


Catholic Tradition says



Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also in 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- Letter of the Holy Office 1949 published in the Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3870-3873 ( Emphasis added)
Pope Pius XII in 1949 referred to the infallible teaching the dogma. He called it an infallible statement a dogma.


1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215). Ex cathedra.

2.“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.).Ex cathedra.


3.“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.) Ex cathedra – from the website Catholicism.org
12. Doctrines Develop



Sandra Mazzolini who has written a controversial book in Italian on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, based on the writings of Fr. William Most, is to teach at the Urbaniana Pontifical University, Rome in the new academic year 2010-2011.

According to the University Handbook she will conduct a seminar on ‘The development and interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (MLT 3005 3 credits Second Semester Lo sviluppo e interpretazione dell ‘Extra ecclesiam nulla salus’). There are other courses too which she has been permitted to teach as a lecturer in the department of missiology.

Defined dogmas do not develop

Sandra Mazzolini’s two reasons for their change in the interpretation of the dogma are factually incorrect. She cites Fr. Leonard Feeney and Vatican Council II as the reason for the ‘development’.

1. There is no Church Document which states that Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston was excommunicated for heresy. The Letter of the Holy Office published in the Denzinger Enchiridion states the excommunication was for disobedience. The ex cathedra dogma indicated, like Fr. Leonard Feeney’s rigorist interpretation, that all Jews in Boston need to convert into the Catholic Church with no exception to avoid Hell.

 2. Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II cannot contradict the infallible teaching since there is no explicit invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire that we can know of. There are no cases of the baptism of desire which we know of in the present times or the last 100 years. None of us knows whom Jesus will judge as having a good conscience on the Day of Judgement. So if there is anyone with the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance or a good conscience it will be known only to God. For us it is only a concept, something we accept in principle, hypothetical, a possibility known only to God. So if it not explicit how it can contradict the rigorist interpretation of the ex cathedra dogma which says everyone with no exception, needs to enter the Church to go to Heaven.

So where is the basis of the ‘development’ of extra ecclesiam nulla salus? How can you interpret it differently from the past with no new texts or Church documents to support you?

Affirmation
We need leaders of these pro life groups to say ,”I agree, I affirm Cantate Domino, Dominus Iesus 20, Ad Gentes 7 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846’.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD COULD ASK HUMAN LIFE INTERNATIONAL TO AFFIRM CANTATE DOMINO AS AN EXAMPLE FOR PRO-ABORTION CATHOLICS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/11/planned-parenthood-could-ask-human-life.html#links


NO CONTRADICTION FROM HLI : HOLDS LEFTIST,SECULAR INTERPRETATION OF EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS AND EXPECTS CATHOLICS TO BE FAITHFUL TO CHURCH TEACHING ON CONTRACEPTIVES
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/11/no-contradiction-from-hli-holds.html#links