Thursday, December 18, 2014

Pope John Paul II made a doctrinal error

Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger were wrong. Since they assumed Pope Pius XII was correct.For them there were exceptions to the dogma on salvation. If there were exceptions then it means the deceased now in Heaven are visible to be exceptions.Those  saved with the  baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance were physically visible on earth!.
It is with this irrational inference ( the dead-saved are visible exceptions to Fr.Leonard Feeney)  that Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger interpreted Vatican Council II.
For Cardinal Ratzinger  this irrationality was  'a development of doctrine'.It is a development,  he says, 'in the realm of the truths of faith'. He based his new theology on the dead now in heaven being visible on earth and considered it a development.
The irrationality was not corrected in Catechesis Tradendae of Pope John Paul II in 1979 when Cardinal Ratzinger was not yet appointed the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1981).
28.The Church has faithfully preserved what the word of God teaches, not only about truths which must be believed but also about moral action, action pleasing to God (cf. 1 Th 4:1); she has achieved a doctrinal development analogous to that which has taken place in the realm of the truths of faith. Assisted by the Holy Spirit who leads her into all the truth (cf. Jn 16:13), the Church has not ceased, nor can she ever cease, to contemplate the "mystery of the Word Incarnate", in whom "light is shed on the mystery of man".-Veritatis Splendor,1993
The irrationality and development of doctrine can be seen here in Redemptoris Missio in which extra ecclesiam nulla salus, defined by three Church Councils is rejected.Fr.Leonard Feeney was taboo.
 10. The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.-Redemptoris Missio 1990
  For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace... Who are these people? They are not known to us. We cannot know their names.They are known only to God. For Cardinal Ratzinger however 'these people' are real exceptions to the dogma.So the Church Councils were wrong over the centuries for him.Every one no more needs to enter the Church formallly to avoid Hell.
The mistake comes from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.Pope Pius XII assumed that the necessity of means or precept, being saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance,all referred to actual cases that we can know of.
Only God can judge who can be saved according to the necessity of means and precept.So if it was just mentioned and left at that it would not be a problem.But it was assumed that necessity of means and precept were exceptions to the traditional interpretatiom of Fr.Leonard Feeney.So if they were exceptions then then would have to be visible and known.This was the mistake.
 Invisible cases cannot be relevant or an exception to the thrice defined dogma. This dogma is  not mentioned anywhere in Redemptoris Mission, a   document on mission and evangelisation.A defined dogma has developed! It nor more exists.
Here is 'the doctrinal development' Pope John Paul II overlooked.
32.In this context, it is extremely important to give a correct and fair presentation of the other Churches and ecclesial communities that the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using as means of salvation; "moreover, some, even very many, of the outstanding elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church herself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church."Among other things this presentation will help Catholics to have both a deeper understanding of their own faith and a better acquaintance with and esteem for their other Christian brethren, thus facilitating the shared search for the way towards full unity in the whole truth. It should also help non-Catholics to have a better knowledge and appreciation of the Catholic Church and her conviction of being the "universal help toward salvation." -Catechesis Tradendae 1979
Pope John Paul II rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus .He says  'many, of the outstanding elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church herself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church'. He implies that these elements outside the Church leading to salvation, are defacto, explicit, visible and seen in real life. So they become concrete exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.For Pope John Paul II everyone does not need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church - there are exceptions which 'exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church' .How would he know they exist? If we cannot name them they cannot be exceptions to the dogma. This is Cushingism. Dejure, invisible and hypothetical cases are considered defacto, visible and seen in the flesh.
Since there are explicit exceptions for Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger there will be exceptions in the Nicene Creed. I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin now refers to three known baptisms for the forgiveness of sin.The baptism of water,desire and blood.This is irrational. Since the baptism of desire and blood are known only to God.We cannot administer them.We cannot say that someone will be saved without the baptism of water. There is in reality only one known baptism, the baptism of water.
This irrationality is repeated in Profession of faith and the recitation of the Nicene Creed.
This same Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is contained in the Profession of faith developed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,(1) which must be made by specific members of the faithful when they receive an office, that is directly or indirectly related to deeper investigation into the truths of faith and morals, or is united to a particular power in the governance of the Church.- -Ad Tuendam Fidem,1998
It is not a truth of the faith to infer that there are three known baptisms for the forgiveness of sin. Also with this irrationality there would be more than three known baptisms. There is being saved with ' the seeds of the Word' (AG 11), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) , elements of sanctification and truth(LG 8), a ray of the Truth (NA 2) etc.Irrationality extended!
2. The Profession of faith, which appropriately begins with the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, contains three propositions or paragraphs intended to describe the truths of the Catholic faith, which the Church, in the course of time and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit “who will teach the whole truth” (Jn 16:13), has ever more deeply explored and will continue to explore. -Ad Tuendam Fidem,1998
How can the Holy Spirit teach irrationality? It also has  no traditional precedent before 1949.Magisterial documents before 1949 for instance mention the baptism of desire but do not say that it refers to visible and known cases. Neither does Mystici Corporis or the Council of Trent state that the baptism of desire is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The first paragraph states: “With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.”(4) This paragraph appropriately confirms and is provided for in the Church’s universal legislation, in canon 750 of the Code of Canon Law(5) and canon 598 of the Code of the Canons of the Eastern Churches.--Ad Tuendam Fidem,1998
'With firm faith'..I believe in three or more known baptisms which exclude the baptism of water?
The third paragraph states: “Moreover I adhere with submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”(7) This paragraph has its corresponding legislative expression in canon 752 of the Code of Canon Law(8) and canon 599 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.- Ad Tuendam Fidem,1998
The ordinary Magisterium teaches that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.How can invisible cases for us be defacto exceptions to the dogma?
3. The second paragraph, however, which states “I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals,”(10) has no corresponding canon in the Codes of the Catholic Church. This second paragraph of the Profession of faith is of utmost importance since it refers to truths that are necessarily connected to divine revelation. These truths, in the investigation of Catholic doctrine, illustrate the Divine Spirit’s particular inspiration for the Church’s deeper understanding of a truth concerning faith and morals, with which they are connected either for historical reasons or by a logical relationship...- Ad Tuendam Fidem,1998
We have to accept the 'development of doctrine' based on the dead being visible exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation?
Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.- Ad Tuendam Fidem,1998
'anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church'.The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which Pope Pius XII called an 'infallible teaching' has been rejected in magisterial documents during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II. It is alleged that there are exceptions to the dogma. These exceptions refer to  persons who are assumed to be in Heaven and are not known to us in personal case.It is presumed that these persons now in Heaven are  seen and known on earth to be exceptions.This is fantasy. This cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit. It is an oversight by Pope John Paul II ( my favourite pope) and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
This error was overlooked in the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney. It was also unknown to the magisterium during the excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.Vatican Council II did not contradict the traditional teaching on other religions and Christian communities, as it was assumed. Since without the irrational premise, the Council is in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as it was interpreted over the centuries by the Church Councils, popes and saints - before 1949
-Lionel Andrades

Similar to Dominus Iesus and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Cardinal Ratzinger used an irrational inference in Ut Unum Sin

Franciscans of the Immaculate, SSPX note : Cardinal Ratzinger used an irrational inference in the interpretation of Dominus Iesus

In Dominus Iesus Cardinal Ratzinger chose the irrational inference and rejected the traditional dogma on salvation

Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake with the Letter of the Holy Office and carried it over into Vatican Council II


Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors
June 21, 2014
Catholic Religious indicate the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake :implicit desire etc is not visible to us

Catholic religious contradict Bishop Fellay : Nostra Aetate is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus



Implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martigioni


No comments: