Saturday, March 29, 2014

From Protect the Pope, 'Lionel Andrades and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus' : The leaders of the SSPX are not being condemned here

(Note: March 30,2014. All my comments/replies are there once again on Protect the Pope)

On the blog Protect the Pope there  was a comment by Catholic at Rome. 
I replied.My comment  was deleted. All my other replies and posts were deleted except for the first one in which I thanked Mrs. Donnely for accepting the report Bishop Bernard Fellay made a doctrinal error : contradicts the Catechism of Pope Pius X.
 

From Protect the Pope, 'Lionel Andrades and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus'

Catholic at Rome
Mrs. Donnelly,
You have to take some care with those like Lionel who want to defend the followers and doctrines of Fr. Feeney, SJ. Fr. Feeney was a famous apologist from Boston USA, but in his writings he often switched between senses of terms. Thus, his personal doctrine about Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in certain points veered away from the teaching of the Fathers.
 
Lionel:
I am affirming extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Vatican Council II (AG 7), the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846, the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus defined three times by three different Church Councils.
 
True, Outside of the Church there is no salvation, is a dogma of the Church, and this means. not only that all salvation which comes alone from Christ’s merits, flows from His Church, the Catholic Church, but also that you can only receive it if you die a faithful member of that Church.
 
Lionel:
At first he says it is true Outside of the Church there is no salvation is a dogma of the Church. Then he says it means....What he adds here  is not mentioned in the text of the dogma nor repeated by the many saints  and popes who affirmed the same dogma over centuries. The dogma does not mention any exceptions.

However, Fr. Feeney went further and denied the Patristic teaching, which is common teaching today,
 
Lionel:
The Patristic teaching is common today ?! The Church Fathers said the baptism of desire was visible to us on earth and so was an exception to the dogma! They too could see the dead-saved who had come down to earth to be visible exceptions to Tradition.

 

approved by such doctors of the Church as St. Alphonsus dei Liguori, that there is an extraordinary case in which someone dies with the grace necessary to be saved, without however being a visible member of the Catholic Church.
 
Lionel:
He said that there is an extra ordinary case and this case was a visible exception to the literal interpretation of  Fr.Leonard Feeney ?!

 

This is called “Baptism of Desire” in English, but in Latin, baptismus flaminis, or more correctly translated as, “Baptism by the flame of inspiration”. It is postulated to occur when the Holy Spirit inspires one with faith in Christ with such purity that if he knew of the Church he would have joined the Church. But invinceable ignorance, the human incapacity to know the Church and overcome this ignorance, intervenes, and thus it results that the man dies in the grace of God, but visibly outside the Church.
 
Lionel:
And we know these cases. We personally can name them for them to be relevant and to be mentioned here?!
 
In Explaining this hypothetical case as with the expression Baptism of Desire many have fallen into error, because they do not have recourse to the patristic teaching, and the strict meaning of the terms underwhich it must be explained. 

Lionel:
It is a hypothetical case and the strict way in which it has to be explained is that these cases being 'also' non-hypothetical but defacto and known in reality are exceptions to the centuries old interpretation !!?.

It is not, as the followers of Fr. Feeney say, a way of replacing Baptism by water, which is an remains according to the Teaching of Christ the only means, visible and invisible, for becomming a member of Christ’s Church, when the one receiving this, desires this; for a man baptised in the Protestant Church desiring to be a member of that Church, does not desire to be a member of the true and only Church, and thus the effect of Baptism, which is inherent in the sacrament is thwarted. Baptism of Desire is not a sacrament, nor does any man know with certainty whether he himself or another has received such a grace from the Holy Ghost. 

Lionel:
Once again what has the baptism of desire, without the baptism of water or with the baptism of water have to do with the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.?
 
But theologians commonly say, so as to affirm the pre-eminence of the action of the Holy Spirit and the essential efficacy of sanctifying grace, that if such a case were to exist, then the movement of grace given by the Holy Spirit would alone be sufficient to save the man, and ipso facto make him a member at death in the Church triumphant or suffering, though he was never a visible member of the Church militant.
Lionel:
So what ? Once again- do we know this case for this to be relevant to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney? 

Thus there is no reason to condemn the fathers of the SSPX on this score, who have sought to eradicate the exaggerations and errors spread by many disciples of Fr. Feeney, who, like them, are right in holding fast to the Ancient Roman Rite. 

Lionel:
The leaders of the SSPX are not being condemned here. I am pointing out that Bishop Fellay has made a doctrinal error, so that, he will correct it. Once he corrects it, it will have important consequences in the Catholic Church. The same error is being made by the cardinals and archbishops of the CDF and the rest of the Vatican but they do not want to correct it.
I am not a member of Fr.Leonard Feeney's community  and I did not come to this issue through his community. I am not using their theology nor that of the SSPX.
I am only making a philosophical, intellectual observation. It is, we cannot see the dead who are now saved in Heaven. So how can the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance be an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney or the saints and popes? 

Finally, in this discussion of Baptism as necessary, one must distinguish between necessary by a necessity of means and necessary by a necessity of precept, and necessary by a necessity of being.
Lionel:
Either way it is known only to God. So why mention it ? It is not an exception to all needing to convert into the Catholic Church in 2014 for salvation.
 
  Baptism by water is the sacrament precepted by Christ for salvation: as a sacrament it is necessary by a necessity of precept. The common teaching regarding Baptism of desire, holds that Baptism by water is not necessary absolutely by a necessity of being, and that there exists an except to the precept to receive the Sacrament though there is no exception to the fundamental grace and act required to receive the Sacrament: namely to the grace of faith and penance with justification and sanctifying grace.
 
Lionel:
If the baptism of desire results in only justification or also in salvation, we still must remember that there is no known  case in 2014 for it to be an exception to the dogma.We have to look at the issue philosophically too.
 
For those who don’t see the theological necessity for affirming the efficacy of the baptismus flaminis, they fall into denying its underlying truths, namely the primacy of the Holy Spirit’s action in giving the grace of faith and penance, in justifying a sinner, and in saving the elect; the universality of Christ’s merits, the limitations of human ignorance, etc.
 
Lionel:
Does the Holy Spirit say that we can see the dead? Would the Holy Spirit teach this irrationality  and then allow us to build a theology upon it ?
 
 However, on the side of those who attacked Fr. Feeney and many of his disciples, there is often lost the appreciation for the universality of God’s Providence, which should be presumed to provide all necessary occasions for salvation to the Elect, and the terrible justice of God which ought to punish every failing to be faithful to God’s Providential designs, howsoever small, a Justice which has the right to damn a man, even for a venial fault, since salvation is simply and purely a gift, and never in se merited prior to justification; even though for those justified, one can by good works, faith and charity, merit salvation, for this is the blessed wonder which grace effects, the collaboration in one’s own salvation (de condigno) and that of others (de congruo).
 
Lionel:
Yes salvation is a gift and a grace finally and it is known only to God. Those who are saved are visible only to Him


http://protectthepope.com/?p=10239
 

International Theological Commission,Vatican indicates magisterium of Pope Pius XII made an objective error

(Note: March 30.014 all my comments/replies are available on Protect the Pope.http://protectthepope.com/?p=10239 )
ITC,Vatican unknowingly made the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error.


In the ITC's  'Christianity and the World Religions' and  'The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptized'  the pope is supposed to have  assumed the dead are visible in the flesh for us.Since for him there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, according to the ITC.

It is a fact that humans in general cannot see the deceased now saved in Heaven. ITC says Pope Pius XII faulted Fr.Leonard Feeney for his literal  interpretation of Vatican Council II which did not take into account 'this fact' of there being exceptions.

There are exceptions?!! Pope Pius XII believed the dead are visible!

The Holy Office did not issue a correction in the late 1940's upto 1965 when Vatican Council II concluded.No pope commented on this issue.Pope Benedict XVI approved the two theological papers of the ITC which carry the same objective error.It is alleged that ther are visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Throughout the centuries it is implied, in the Catholic Church they did not know about this error, clarified in the 1940's by Pope Pius XII, that of visible-dead being exceptions to the dogma.

Even Pope Francis in his last exhortation Evangelii Gaudium presented the Protestant kerygma which excludes the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation, the necessity of 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) in the Catholic Church for all.Since there were known exceptions?

The  President of the ITC, when this claim was made about Pope Pius XII, was a Jesuit priest too.He is now Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J, the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith , Vatican (Holy Office).Some of his books are on display in the corridor of the Gregorian Pontifical University, Rome.He was a liberal professor of theology there.Now they have a new department, called boldly The Department of the Theology of Religions.The Theology of Religions, is mentioned in one of the ITC papers and  is based on 'the fact' of being able to see the deceased-saved.These visible-dead cases are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Catechism of Pope Pius X (27 Q), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846- all need to enter the Church as through a door) and other magisterial documents.May be even the professors of theology at the Gregorian University can see the deceased  walking on the streets of Rome.
 
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith along with the ITC imply- that those saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance (LG 16) are physically visible to us on earth.So everyone does not have to convert into the Catholic Church in 2014 with 'faith and baptism' (Vatican Council II) . Since there are visible exceptions . Personally known to them, exceptions. Nostra Aetate 2 becomes is a break with the past with these visible non Catholics saved in their religion.It is another  exception to the centuries old interpretation.If these cases were not visible on earth in human form, NA 2 would  not be a break with tradition. Vatican Council II would be traditional also with UR 3, LG 8,LG 16 etc.
 
By now it must be clear to many Catholics especially those who had been following the discussion on the blog Protect the Pope ,  that the ITC has made a factual error. It is the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error common in the Church among liberals and traditionalists.
 
The ITC has not made the distinction between the concepts  implicit-explicit, subjective-objective,invisible-visible.On the contrary its members have assumed that what is hypothetical is defacto known in reality.The possibility of being saved in invincible ignorance for example, is considered a known reality in specific cases.

About the author and editor of the blog Protect the Pope.
From its inception to the beginning of March 2014, Rev Nick Donnelly, was the main author and editor of this blog.  At this time he is in a period of relection and prayer.  Nick is a permanent deacon of the Diocese of Lancaster, and an author for the Catholic Truth Society. He holds a BA Divinity in Theology and a Masters in Spiritual Formation. Protect the Pope is a private initiative and is in no way officially associated with the Diocese of Lancaster.
 
 
From Protect the Pope, 'Lionel Andrades and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus' (2)
 
Michael B Rooke
It might be noted
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS
(1997)
PRELIMINARY NOTE
The study of the theme “Christianity and the World Religions” was adopted for study by a large majority of the members of the International Theological Commission. …..The present text was approved “in forma specifica” by vote of the commission on 30 September 1996 and was submitted to its president, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who has given his approval for its publication.

Lionel:

They have unknowingly, at ITC, made the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error.

8. The fundamental question is this: Do religions mediate salvation to their members? There are those who give a negative reply to this question; even more, some do not even see any sense in raising it. Others give an affirmative response, which in turn gives rise to other questions: Are such mediations of salvation autonomous or do they convey the salvation of Jesus Christ? It is a question therefore of defining the status of Christianity and of religions as sociocultural realities in their relation to human salvation. This question should not be confused with that of the salvation of individuals, Christian or otherwise. Due account has not always been taken of this distinction.

Lionel:

According to Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.In Heaven there are only Catholics who are there without mortal sin and with faith and baptism. The majority of people on earth who die without converting into the Catholic Church with faith and baptism are oriented to Hell according to Vatican Council II (AG 7, CCC 846 etc)

9. Many attempts have been made to classify the different theological positions adopted toward this problem. Let us see some of these classifications: Christ against religions, in religions, above religions, beside religions. An ecclesiocentric universe or exclusive Christology; a Christocentric universe or inclusive Christology; a theocentric universe with a normative Christology; a theocentric universe with a non-normative Christology. Some theologians adopt the tripartite division exclusivism, inclusivism, pluralism, which is seen as parallel to another: ecclesiocentrism, Christocentrism, theocentrism. Given that we have to choose one of these classifications in order to continue our reflection, we will follow the latter, even though we might complement it with the others if necessary.

Lionel:

With no known exceptions in 2014 to the traditional and literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, there is no change in ecclesiology (understanding of Church). Since there are no known exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.There is no New Revelation in Vatican Council II. Ad Gentes 7 affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and LG 16, LG 8,NA 2, UR 3 etc are not exceptions,since they don't exist in our reality.


10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22).

Lionel:

 Here we come to the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error in this ITC paper.
Catholic theologians referred to here could include the liberal theologian in dissent, Fr.John Hicks.
 
'after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22).' 
ITC is telling us that those saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) for example 'who do not belong visibly to the Church' can be saved. ITC implies that these cases are visible for us, personally known, for them to be exceptions to the literal and traditional interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
This is a factual error. Since we cannot see the dead who are saved in Heaven and who were in invincible ignorance. We cannot name any such person.So how can a possibility be considered an exception. 

11. Christocentrism accepts that salvation may occur in religions, but it denies them any autonomy in salvation on account of the uniqueness and universality of the salvation that comes from Jesus Christ. This position is undoubtedly the one most commonly held by Catholic theologians, even though there are differences among them. It attempts to reconcile the universal salvific will of God with the fact that all find their fulfillment as human beings within a cultural tradition that has in the corresponding religion its highest expression and its ultimate foundation.

Lionel:
Due to allegedly known exceptions the ITC has rejected traditional ecclesiology for a vague Christocentrism.
Also if someone is saved in another religion through Christ it is not known to us in 2014 to be an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. Again the ITC is implying that those saved in other religions through Jesus and the Church are visible to be exceptions to Traditonal ecclesiology.

66. In his encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pius XII addresses the question, How are those who attain salvation outside visible communion with the Church related to her? He says that they are oriented to the mystical body of Christ by a yearning and desire of which they are not aware (DS 3821).

Lionel:
In Mystici Corporis Pope Pius XII does not state that these cases are visible for us.Neither does he state  that possibilities are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation.ITC implies he does. ITC implies he made an objective error.
 
 The opposition of the American Jesuit Leonard Feeney, who insisted on the exclusivist interpretation of the expression extra ecclesiam nulla solus, afforded the occasion for the letter of the Holy Office, dated 8 August ,1949, to the archbishop of Boston, which rejected Feeney s interpretation and clarified the teaching of Pius XII.

Lionel:
 The ITC is saying here that Fr.Leonard Feeney's interpretation of there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church with no exceptions, was rejected by Pope Pius XII.It was rejected  since the pope thought there are known exceptions. Implicit desire mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was a known exceptions.The pope was saying there were exceptions. If there were exceptions it means these cases would have to be known to the pope.
 
 The letter distinguishes between the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation (necessitas praecepti) and the necessity of the indispensable means of salvation (intrinseca necessitas); in relationship to the latter, the Church is a general help for salvation (DS 3867—69).
Lionel:
'the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation (necessitas praecepti) and the necessity of the indispensable means of salvation (intrinseca necessitas)'
How is this related to the dogma? Either way it is known only to God.So how is it relevant to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney ? Unless , of course, the ITC considers these cases visible for us and assumes Pope Pius XII could also, like God,  see the dead-saved as such.
 
 In the case of invincible ignorance the implicit desire of belonging to the Church suffices; this desire will always be present when a man aspires to conform his will to that of God (DS 3870). But faith, in the sense of Hebrews 11:6, and love are always necessary with intrinsic necessity (DS 3872).
Lionel:
Again, how is being saved in invincible ignorance a known exception to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. These cases are invisible for us. So did Pope Pius XII make a mistake according to the ITC ?

67. Vatican Council II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But in using it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation.
 
Lionel:
'those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation'.
This is known only to God, so why mention it? We cannot know  who was in invincible ignorance and was saved. We cannot know in 2014  who 'knew' and did not enter the Church and is condemned. Does ITC imply that these are visible exceptions to the teaching which says all need to enter the Church visibly (with faith and baptism) to go to Heaven and avoid Hell ?
 
 The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII, but emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this expression.
Lionel:
'but emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this expression.'
 
What is the parentehtical charachter of the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? The dead-saved who are now in Heaven are visible expressions to all needing to convert into the Church?
 
-Lionel Andrades
 
1.

164. In catechesis too, we have rediscovered the fundamental role of the first announcement or kerygma, which needs to be the centre of all evangelizing activity and all efforts at Church renewal. The kerygma is trinitarian. The fire of the Spirit is given in the form of tongues and leads us to believe in Jesus Christ who, by his death and resurrection, reveals and communicates to us the Father’s infinite mercy. On the lips of the catechist the first proclamation must ring out over and over: “Jesus Christ loves you; he gave his life to save you; and now he is living at your side every day to enlighten, strengthen and free you.” This first proclamation is called “first” not because it exists at the beginning and can then be forgotten or replaced by other more important things. It is first in a qualitative sense because it is the principal proclamation, the one which we must hear again and again in different ways, the one which we must announce one way or another throughout the process of catechesis, at every level and moment. For this reason too, “the priest – like every other member of the Church – ought to grow in awareness that he himself is continually in need of being evangelized”.

This is a serious issue!

This is a serious issue.It involves not only the SSPX and Bishop Bernard Fellay but others in the Church.
Padre Pio Prayer Groups, Neo Catechumenal Way, Charismatic Renewal, all the religious communities, Diocesan priests…
All salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3).,seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) are either:
 
COLUMN A
implicit   for us.
hypothetical 
invisible in the flesh                                       
dejure ( in principle)                               
subjective

OR
 
COLUMN B
explicit for us.
known in reality.
visible in teh flesh.
defacto ( in fact)
objective
 
So one can choose from COLUMN A or COLUMN  B.
If COLUMN B is chosen then Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition in general on other religions and Christian communities and churches. There are known exceptions in 2014 to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Cathlic Church. The dead- saved are visible.
If COLUMN A is chosen then Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus, nor Tradition on other religions and Christian communities and churches.
 
Most people interpret Vatican Council II with COLUMN B.
 
So the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance was never ever an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, unless one is using COLUMN B.There were and are no known exceptions.
 
In 2014 the Padre Pio Prayer groups, the Neo Catechumenal Way, Charismatic Renewal, all the religious communities and most of the Diocesan priests are using the irrational column (COLUMN B) in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston 1949.
-Lionel Andrades