Monday, July 14, 2014

USCCB Secretariate of Divine Worship responds: makes the same error as Jem Sullivan and the Notification on Fr.Peter Phan

Fr.Dan Merz, Associate Director, Secretariate of Divine Worship,USCCB has responded to these blog posts on the video reflection by Jem Sullivan Ph.d.
 
The blog posts mentioned that the USCCB denied the Catholic Faith since it has presented Jesus without the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation.The video reflection was criticized also for what it did not say.
 
 
 
Jem Sullivan implied that the USCCB has denied the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says all need to enter the Church formally for salvation.It also denied the same message which is there in Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II (all need faith and baptism for salvation).
 
Further Eucharist and Mission  said that Jem Sullivan was denying the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, and so was the USCCB, since they consider the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible to us, seen in the flesh in 2014. So these 'visible cases' are assumed to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.They would have to be visible to Sullivan and USCCB officials for them to be exceptions. Hence Sullivan  omitted saying that every one with no exception needs to enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell. The dogma was the traditional basis for Catholic Mission.

The common error is confirmed in Fr.Dan Merz's letter reproduced below. He infers that those saved in invincible ignorance are explicit exceptions to all defacto needing the baptism of water in 2014 for salvation .All means no exceptions.
The USCCB made the same mistake in the Fr.Peter C. Phan case.The USCCB Notification stated that the baptism of desire etc were EXCEPTIONS to all  needing to convert into the Church. A hypothetical case for us ( baptism of desire) was assumed to be  defacto and known in the present times for it to be an exception.
 
The USCCB was also not aware of the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.It was s assumed by the Holy Office in 1949 that the baptism of desire was explicit for us instead of implicit. So it was considered  an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma by Fr.Leonard Feeney.The cardinal who issued the Letter assumed that invisible for us  salvation in Heaven,with the baptism of desire, was visible to us on earth for it to be relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is a fact  of life that we cannot see the dead-saved.
 
Fr.Dan Merz defending the USCCB policy states :
 
'..the Church certainly holds to Baptism as the ordinary means for salvation, but she also is clear that God is not bound to those means. The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this very clear in no. 1260:
Lionel:  The Church holds to the baptism of water as the ordinary means of salvation. The baptism of desire is a possibility known only to God and it is not the ordinary means of salvation.Neither is a possibility a known reality in the present times.
Those who are theoretically saved without the baptism of water ( if it is possible) are not defacto known cases for them to be exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
Lionel: Yes he can be saved if he is in invincible ignorance.However CCC 1260 does not state that these cases are visible, explicit for us, seen in the flesh, objectively noted.
Reason tells us that these cases are invisible for us and visible only for God.
So how can a hypothetical case, a possibility  known only to God, be a defacto  exception in 2014 to all needing Sacramental Baptism for salvation?.
How can the baptism of desire even be relevant for all needing to convert into the Church through the ordinary means of salvation ( the baptism of water)?
Fr.Dan Merz like the USCCB officials and Jem Sullivan are mixing up implicit-explicit, invisible-visible, dejure( in principle)-defacto( in reality).Since they assume that implicit cases are explicit they do not affirm the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and the necessity for all (defacto) to be formal members with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7).
CCC 1260  does not mention any exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus unless it is inferred that what  is implicit and invisible for us is explicit and visible.A theoretical case is made a defacto exception.

Here is the letter from Fr.Dan Merz .He makes the same error as Jem Sullivan and also that of the USCCB  Notification on Fr.Peter C.Phan.
 
 
Dear Mr. Andrades,

The blog post seems to refer to the video reflection by Jem Sullivan, Ph.D. for July 11, 2014, in which she speaks about the Church's call to evangelization. The blog condemns the reflection without citing any of her words, and when I listened to her words, I could find nothing blameworthy.

Secondly, the Church certainly holds to Baptism as the ordinary means for salvation, but she also is clear that God is not bound to those means. The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this very clear in no. 1260:

1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

I hope this helps.
Peace and All Good,
Fr. Merz

Fr. Dan Merz
Associate Director
Secretariat of Divine Worship
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3211 4th St. NE
Washington, DC 20017
voice: (202) 541-3060
fax: (202) 541-3088
_________________________________________
http://www.usccb.org/about/divine-worship/

USCCB catechists certification : enforcing irrationality in the dioceses 

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/usccb-catechists-certification.html#links

USCCB catechists certification : enforcing irrationality in the dioceses

All Catechesis in the USA has to be approved confidentially by the USCCB Committees, according to their website.1 The video Daily Mass Reflections are also approved by the USCCB and meet their standards. All catechists, it is learnt from the presentations, have not to proclaim the Gospel inviting people to come to Jesus in the Catholic Church.They are allowed to affirm Jesus only without the necessity of the Church. Affirming Jesus with the Catholic Church would violate the norms set by the Chief Rabbi of Israel, the Vatican-Jewish Coordinating Council and the U.S liberal Rabbis monitoring the Catholic Church.It would be missionary and this is prohibited.
Secondly they have to affirm that all salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II is defacto visible to us on earth and so these deceased and visible cases, are explicit exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus .
 
Catechists are also not allowed to state that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a mistake in assuming that implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible to us in real life.So these visible cases were exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation.
The Archdiocese of San Antonio organized an interfaith prayer service June 26, 2012 which included participants Chaplin Gary Goodlin, Major, United States Air Force; Rabbi Aryeh Scheinberg, Congregation Rabbi Rodfei Sholom, Jewish Faith; Gurvinder Singh, Sikh Research Institute, Sikh Faith; Dr. Rajam Ramamurthy, Hindu Faith. (Photo: Jordan McMorrough, Today’s Catholic)
American catechists are expected to continue this line of thinking when interpreting Vatican Council II,  ' a ray of the Truth (NA 2) etc. Being saved with ' a ray of the Truth'  refers to personally known cases to Catechists.So they are examples of visible salvation outside the Church. Every one does not need the baptism of water for salvation in 2014 in the USA and abroad.This is the USCCB interpretation for catechetical certification.Approved catechists have to proclaim these errors in the dioceses and enforce them.
For a positive certification from the USSCB American Catholic catechists have to say:-

1.The  baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not invisible but visible for us and so  are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

2. Catechists have to state that they have   personally seen someone  saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire in 2014 (otherwise how could they be exceptions?)

3.The Catholic Church magisterium states/infers in  magisterial documents,including Vatican Council II,  that implicit desire refers to explicit cases,seen in the flesh.
Catechists have to proclaim that  magisterial documents state that there are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus even though catechists  cannot name any such document except for the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued by Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani,during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.The Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing was not an official Act of the Apostolic See, for it never appeared in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis itself. tThe “source” Denzinger’s compilation gives for the Holy Office Letter is The American Ecclesiastical Review! 2

-Lionel Andrades
 

1.
ttp://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/how-we-teach/catholic-education/certification/index.cfm
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/how-we-teach/catholic-education/certification/individuals-seeking-certification.cfm
 
2.
 
 
Photo of Archbishop John C. Nienstedt, Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis,USA, Chairman.,USSCB Committe on Doctrine.

Church Militant Meets Church Triumphant - Michael Voris