Saturday, June 28, 2014

A Catholic school boy and a Buddhist meet Archbishop Marchetto and Professor Roberto de Mattei at their next meeting

 
A Catholic school boy and a Buddhist meet Archbishop Marchetto and Professor Roberto de Mattei at their next meeting 1 ( scenario)
 

Archbishop Marchetto and Prof.Roberto de Mattei when they next meet to discuss Vatican Council II are  accompanied by a non Catholic, a Buddhist.There is also a  Catholic school boy who has no religious formation in theology.

The school boy begins to speak to all:
1) We human beings in general cannot see the dead now saved in Heaven.
2) Is it true that the both of you learned gentlemen can physically see the dead in Heaven ?
The Buddhist rises up and confirms:
1) We humans in general cannot see the dead as spirits or in the flesh.
2) Is it true that both of you can see the deceased ? Can Catholics see the deceased now in Heaven?

Archbishop Marchetto and Professor Mattei smile and  say clearly  that Catholics cannot see the deceased who are now in Heaven and neither can people in general see the dead.
 
So what is the point of these statements the two learned Catholics would want to know ?
Then the school boy would rise again and ask something his uncle mentioned  but he could not understand well: "How can the deceased saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance be an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
"If these cases refer to the dead then how can they be an exception to all needing to convert into the Church in 2014, with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water? We cannot see these cases and all still need to convert is the Catholic teaching?"

Then the Buddhist, now more confused, bows and asks Archbishop Marchetto and Professor Mattei, discussing Vatican Council II:
 "Why do you Catholics say those saved with ' a ray of the Truth'(Nostra Aetate 2, Vatican Council II)  are  an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

"You do not know anyone in 2014 saved as such so how can it be an exception?"

Neither can Archbishop Marchetto or Professo Roberto de Mattei  name someone in 2014 who is saved with ' a ray of the Truth'.

Then the school boy asks : "How is Vatican Council II a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the texts of Vatican Council II ? "
The Buddhist has a supporting question: "Is not Vatican Council II in perfect agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney?"

" Young man Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition and Tradition must be adapted to Vatican Council II",says Archbishop Marchetto.
 
"You mean it has to be believed that the dead -saved are visible on earth and so they are an exception to all needing to convert into the Catholic Church?" the young  boy asks.

"Where is the citation in Vatican Council II which contradicts  extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition?", he wants to know.

Archbishop Marchetto  cites Nostra Aetate 2, which refers to being saved with  'a ray of the Truth', for him.
 
The Archbishop says,"This is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the need for all to be saved with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. Here is an example of someone who can be saved outside the Church." Tradition is reversed.

The school boy would now explain what is not theology for him but a fact of life common even to the Buddhist.
 
"NA 2 could refer  to a case of a person now in Heaven who is visible to us or who is not visible to us.
"If he is visible on earth then he is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and you are correct.
"If he is not visible on earth then he is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and then I am correct."
He continues:
"So  you both believe  these persons dead are visible on earth?"
No answer.
End of the discussion.
The school boy and the Buddhist are still sure they cannot see the dead.
-Lionel Andrades
 
1

Father Lanzetta and Professor de Mattei are part of a group of scholars which includes Archbishop Marchetto and that for more than two years, each with their own theological and historical identity, these have been examining in a constructive manner an in-depth study of the Second Vatican Council, with no mutual demonization.1
De Mattei answers dissident leader of Franciscans of the Immaculate-Rorate Caeili
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/06/de-matteis-answers-dissident-leader-of.html#more

 

Italians oppose approval of the Scalfarotto homophobia bill :insulted, hampered and fined by the authorities

Siena. Sentinels standing insulted, hampered and even fined (for a megaphone). "It's a pre planned action"'
sentinelle-in-piedi
 
June 24, 2014
Benedetta Frigerio
Interview with the spokesperson of the Sentinels on Foot (Sentinelle in Piedi)  Siena Giampaolo Bianchi after the June 21 treatment received by police, authorities and LGBT protesters: "Totalitarian regimes have been imposed slowly exactly like this".

sentinelle-in-piedi-cremona
"Segregate, gagged and  fined by the local authorities." So the Sentinels standing in Siena "lived a real advance of the regime."
 This was the  strong tone of the press release of the newborn movement that opposes the approval of the  Scalfarotto homophobia bill. Giampaolo Bianchi, a spokesman of the "Sentinels" of Siena, took to the streets for a second silent vigil last Saturday, June 21, tempi.it explains: The bill provides for the crime of opinion .It will be a crime to criticize homosexual activity. It would be considered homophobia in Italy.


THE PLACE IS NOT FOR EVERYONE. In fact, in the Tuscan town those who try to oppose the introduction of the law do  not have an easy life. The first vigil was held in Siena on May 20 in the Piazza del Campo, "but even though we had permission to demonstrate in silence the police allowed leftists  activists and the pansexual movement Arcigay to invade the piazza and insult Sentinels.There were  homosexuals kissing and exchanging effusions in front of women with children. The authorities tried to deny the Sentinel the square to protest the bill.

Two days after the first vigil , May 22, Councillor Katia Leolini of the Democratic Party  contacted the mayor. She said  opposition to the introduction of gay marriage is discriminatory and that the Piazza del Campo could not be granted to the Sentinels on Foot .  Bruno Valentini the mayor  promised a revision of the regulations for granting of the piazza.

VIGIL DIFFICULT. The vigil last Saturday was then moved from Piazza del Campo.The   City  banned the display of the banner of the Sentinels and the distribution of leaflets on the contents of the Scalfarotto bill
 "We were told that leafleting was considered a breach of public land", said the spokesperson of the Sentinels ," even though the Council has no power to decide this". Then they were asked to move from square to square.They then  moved  losing twenty minutes time granted to them.Once in the new square, the Sentinels  found a large group of protesters. "How did they know before we did that, the square was changed?" asks Bianchi.

FLYERS PROHIBITED. The spokesman went to the police asking them to provide the space as was agreed . The protesters moved from the center of the square but continued to scream in front of them.They were not discouraged and they left a box of flyers on the ground, given that they had stopped distributing them. But the traffic police told them that if  if someone had taken those flyers it would have been an abuse of power. 
 sentinelle-in-piedi-siena
 FINED. At the end of the vigil was the scheduled speech of the spokesman. The screams of the protesters  did not permit this.The spokesman read aloud the contents of the leaflet to passers-by making it clear that they had been segregated without the possibility of saying or doing anything. 
The  Sentinels were then accused by the authorities of having used the megaphone without permission: "When I pointed out to them that the others were shouting like mad,'said the spokesman," they replied wryly that before 11 you can do so because it is not  a cackle. "
 
The Sentinels would have to pay a fine of 100 EurosSome passers-by at the scene,offered to help them pay the fine

INTIMIDATING BEHAVIOUR: The Sentinels  said that they will not give up. They will return to the streets to denounce the intimidating behavior of institutions and law enforcement agencies.Since totalitarian regimes are imposed exactly in this way, slowly, thanks to the silence of those who fear their  power.

Cina: il partito rimuove la croce della chiesa. E i cristiani cantano

Cina: il partito rimuove la croce della chiesa. E i cristiani cantano
http://www.tempi.it/videogallery/cina-il-partito-comunista-rimuove-la-croce-della-loro-chiesa-e-i-cristiani-cantano

Where is the actual case of someone saved outside the Church ? There is none

Lionel:
What I have to say is not theology.A  Muslim or Jew could say the same thing. It is an observation common to all people. It is common knowledge that we cannot see the dead. It is common knowlegde that for something to be an exception it must be different and it must exist. This would be known even to a non Catholic or a youth who has no knowledge of Catholic theology.


If you think of the Church as being a "box," then, yes, it is visible, but whether the "apples" in it are fresh or rotten is an entirely invisible matter. We cannot say, with an absolute certainty that we are in a state of grace or will end our lives as such:
Lionel:
The example of the box of fruit was given only to bring to your attention the common understanding that for something to be an exception it would have to be different and it would have to exist in our reality.
 
CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html
Lionel:
This has nothing to do with the error of assuming that 1) we can see the dead and 2) the dead are visible exceptions to all needing to convert into the Catholic Church with no exceptions in 2014.

Sure, that would be a Protestant who shows-up at Mass. He/she is a non-Catholic but whether they will end-up in eternal Hell is known only to the One and Triune God.
Lionel:
Again this has nothing to do with the physical observation of the deceased and then inferring that they are exceptions.



For the baptism of desire to be an exception to all needing to convert into the Church with the baptism of water ( and Catholic Faith) there would have to be a case present in 2014. There would have to be a case known to us.This person must exist in our reality.When there is no such visible case how can it be an exception to all needing to convert with the baptism of water.Where is the actual case of someone saved outside the Church ( without faith and baptism) ? There is none.

You're "pounding on open doors," Lionel. Consider this from the Roman Catechism:

Necessity of Baptism
If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Even the new Catechism states, more or less, the same thing:
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Lionel:
This is all theology. I agree with all this.
Yes the baptism of desire is a possibility. It is known to God.It is theologically acceptable with certain conditions. It is not an exception to all needing to convert into the Catholic Church. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumes that it is an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. This is a mistake.
 



The Letter does not assume that it is an "exception" as it appeals to the Council of Trent, which declared:
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

Lionel:
Theology in itself is not a problem. I agree with you. It is when it is used to indicate that there are known exceptions then it is factually wrong.
The baptism of water is necessary for salvation we both agree here.However when it is inferred that there are exceptions to all needing the baptism of water then it is implied that there are known exceptions. Hypothetical cases cannot be exceptions.To consider the baptism of desire etc as being explicit is irrational. To consider it to be an exception to a defined dogma is heresy. It is theology preceded by an irrational inference.
The Holy Office 1949 also implies that we can see the dead now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire.This is irrational. It is factually incorrect. Objectively we cannot see the dead.

Of course, we can't. No one is claiming that we can.

Lionel:
It is not being claimed outwardly or directly but it is being implied subtly. As soon as you say there are exceptions you are saying that the dead-saved are visible to us.

The Letter is only claiming that the Triune God may know of exceptions; we can't and we don't. Once again,
Lionel:
Yes the Triune God will know of cases saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. These cases would be 'exceptions' for Him. They cannot be exceptions for us.Since we cannot see them. We do not know who they are.So for us they are just possibilities but never exceptions.
The Letter with reference to Fr.Leonard Feeney implies they are exceptions.
CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.
The One and Triune God knows; we don't. That is what the Letter is claiming.
Lionel:
Fine. So why was Fr.Leonard Feeney wrong if the Letter was not claiming there were exceptions?
_____________________________________
 
The Catholic Church has always taught that she is a visible society with a visible head and visible members, composed of individuals who are good and bad, some of whom will spend Eternity in Heaven and others in eternal Hell. While the Church is certainly visible, the fate of its members is not.

Lionel:
Agreed and the Church has always inferred before the 1940's that those saved with the baptism of desire are invisible to us in real life. They are not exceptions to anything.This is rational.It is common sense.
 
Agreed. And, it is still "common sense."
Lionel:
If it is common sense then why is the Letter assuming Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center were wrong?

I think that you're reading text into the Holy Office Letter that is simply not there.

Lionel:
If any one says that the deceased saved and happy in Heaven are now physically visible to us is making a false inference. This is the inference which comes across when you read the Letter of the Holy Office.



It pays to read the whole Letter:

Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.


 
Father Feeney got into trouble because of his public attacks on the Catholic hierarchy, and ultimately, for his refusal to go to Rome to meet the Pope on what would have amounted to a free and completely paid-for trip!!! ("And, who, in their right mind, would have refused a free vacation?!!!!) 

 
Lionel:
The SSPX and the Cathinfo forum interpret the Letter as saying there are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So if there are exceptions Fr.Leonard Feeney made a mistake. This is the message of the Holy Office 1949.
-Lionel Andrades

Supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney unfortunately still use the irrational inference .It can be seen in their interpretation of Vatican Council II

Lionel:
Fine. So why was Fr.Leonard Feeney wrong if the Letter of the Holy Office  was not claiming there were exceptions? The Letter was saying there were exceptions, implicit desire etc ?
Father Feeney was wrong on two counts:
1) He attacked the catechetical materials (namely, the Baltimore Catechism) as being heretical and those promulgating it as being heretics.
Lionel:
So he was not wrong for saying that the baptism of desire is not a visible exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? He was wrong for other things, misunderstandings?

2) He claimed that the "dead were visible," that is, a non-Catholic who died as such was, with an absolute certitude, destined for the "eternal fire."
Lionel:
This is the teaching of the dogma and the Bible. A non Catholic who died as such was on the way to Hell This was wrong for you, since there are known exceptions?

If he would have phrased #2 as being "to a moral certitude," I think that he would have been fine, but his absolutist declarations moved him into the realm of theological error. We cannot say, with an absolute certitude, that any human being has been damned to eternal and everlasting Hell. Father Feeney claimed that such cases were, in fact, "visible" to us.
Lionel:
With absolute certitude we can say that every human being we meet who is not a Catholic is damned to eternal everlasting Hell unless he or she converts into the Catholic Church, since the Bible, Tradition and the Magisterium teach this. You are saying that this is wrong and you know of some explicit exception in 2014 ? Someone whom you can meet who does not need ' faith and baptism' for salvation?
Why did the Letter not support Fr.Leonard Feeney on this point ? It was because they assumed that there were known exceptions !


In any case, the 1949 Holy Office Letter is not an absolute document.
Lionel:
It has a non traditional inference. It uses an irrationality to create a false theology.
 
In fact, "Feeneyite" groups have been fully reconciled to the Church and were only asked to "understand" the Letter without accepting it as being some "de fide" Magisterial document, which, of course, it is not and never has been. It simply does not carry the same weight as a Papal encyclical.
Lionel:
Supporters and communities which support Fr.Leonard Feeney unfortunately still use the irrational inference .This can be seen clearly in their interpretation of Vatican Council II. -Lionel Andrades