Sunday, November 23, 2014

If there are no known cases of Protestants saved with reference to LG 8 ( 'subsistit it' or 'elements of sanctification and truth) there are no exceptions to the dogma

Lionel, my replies below...

SPERAY: They are not our brother and sister IN CHRIST. THAT'S HERETICAL. If you're in Christ then you don't need the Catholic Church which is the problem with Vatican 2. Also, the subsists clause implies that the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church aren't one and the same thing.

Lionel: Jesus asks us to love all. When I love Christ I can love others.
Loving others has nothing to do with it. We are to love everyone, that doesn't mean everyone is in Christ. 

We love all people but that does not mean that all people are saved. I would phrase it as such. 

There are Catholics who have the Sacraments and they also have Christ. However if they die with mortal sin on their soul being in the Catholic Church was for them vain. What good was their knowing Christ or beleiving in Him.

You have to love and obey Christ. Demons know and believe in Christ and they are in hell. 

Yes we have  to love and obey Christ. In obeying Christ , non Catholics  would need to formally enter the Catholic Church, since outside the Church there is no salvation.

Protestants believe in Christ and they have faith in Him but they need to enter the Catholic Church formally for salvation, they need 'faith' (AG 7).They need Catholic Faith with the Sacraments and the faith and moral teachings.
Protestants don't believe in and don't have faith in Christ. They only claim to do so. Since Protestants reject the Church, they reject Christ. Luke 10.  By they way, Catechumens believe in and have faith in Christ, but are they in Christ?
All  need to formally enter the Church with 'faith and baptism' for  salvation (Vatican Council II AG 7).Protestants do not have Catholic Faith, which include the Sacraments, and the moral and faith teachings, necessary for salvation.
In an interview with the German newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine, Ratzinger, aka Benedict XVI, stated:
“When the Council Fathers replace the word ‘is,’ used by Pius XII, with the word ‘subsistit,’they did so for a very precise reason. The concept expressed by ‘is’ (to be) is far broader than that expressed by ‘to subsist.’ ‘To subsist’ is a very precise way of being, that is, to be as a subject, which exists in itself. Thus the Council Fathers meant to say: the being of the Church as such extends much further than the Roman Catholic Church, but within the latter it acquires, in an incomparable way, the character of a true and proper subject.”
Vatican 2 theologians confirm this meaning taught by Ratzinger.
Avery Cardinal Dulles, a member of the International Theological Commission: “The Church of Christ is not exclusively identical to the Roman Catholic Church. It does indeed subsist in Roman Catholicism but it is also present in varying modes and degrees in other Christian communities.” (Toward the Church of the Third MillenniumVerso la Chiesa del Terzo Millennio,Brescia: Queriniana, 1979)
Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, one of the main drafters of Vatican II documents, stated: “It is difficult to say that the Catholic Church is still one, Catholic, apostolic, when one says that the others (other Christian communities) are equally one, Catholic and apostolic, albeit to a lesser degree. —- at Vatican Council II, the Roman Catholic Church officially abandoned its monopoly over the Christian religion.”
Walter J. Burghardt, S.J., “First, all of us who are baptized (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox) — all of us belong in a very real way to the Church of Christ.”
Fr. Gregory Baum, “Concretely and actually the Church of Christ may be realized less, equally, or even more in a Church separated from Rome than in a Church in communion with Rome. This conclusion is inescapable on the basis of the understanding of Church that emerges from the teaching of Vatican Council II.”(Quotes taken from Joseph Maurer’s Open Letter to Catholic Family News)
Pope Benedict XVI has clarified this issue in a document he issued.
Any way we have  a choice in choosing the correct interpretation. If there are no known cases of Protestants saved  with reference to LG 8 ( 'subsistit it' or 'elements of sanctification and truth) , then LG 8 is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition.
LG 8 is heretical because it denies that the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church is one and the same. If something subsists in something, it automatically implies two different things. SUBSISTS IS HERETICAL BY ITSELF. I've already debated this issue on my blog. You are supporting the heretical word and position it implies.

The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. This is how I interpret LG 8 and the document issued by Pope Benedict XVI.
-Lionel Andrades

If they were in full ecclesiastical communion then UR 3 would contradict AG 7. It does not do so for me

Steven Speray:
“Incorporated into Christ” and “in the Lord” means that baptized non-Catholics are members of the Church or else they wouldn’t be incorporated or in Christ.
It does not state that these persons who are incorporated in the Church, as possibilities, known to God only, are visible and known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This has to be wrongly inferred. The text does not state it.

SPERAY: The text says it plainly. Read it again....“Speaking of the members of these Communities, it declares: ‘All those justified by faith through Baptism are incorporated into Christ."

Incorporated into Christ in the sense that they believe in Chirst. Elsewhere in UR 3 it says the same. It mentions in UR 3 that they are not in full ecclesiastical communion ( even though incorporated into Christ).

If they were in full ecclesiastical communion then UR 3 would contradict AG 7. It does not do so for me.
So if some or many of them are incorporated into Christ and are saved too these cases are personally not known to us and cannot be known to us.So they are irrelevant to the teaching which says all need to be formal members of the Church. In the present times we do not know any exception of someone who is an exception because he is incorporated into Christ.


This line does not say that these cases are known and visible to us in the present times.
It does not say that they are exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation.
Neither does it state that  there is a reference to people in general or just a category of persons.
So it is left to us to interpret it.
For me if there are Protestants incorporated into Christ and who are saved they are saved 1) with the  baptism of water and Catholic Faith and  in a way known to God and 2) they refer to cases known only to God so they are not relevant or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They would refer to some people and not Protestants in general since Catholic Faith is the ordinary means of salvation(AG 7 etc).
With or without the baptism of water, these cases are not known to us.So we cannot assume that hypothetical cases are visible in the flesh excveptions in 2014.
-Lionel Andrades

According to the dogma every one needs the baptism of water : do you know any exceptions according to the necessity of precept and means?

With reference to Feeneyism would you say that since the baptism of desire case is not visible to us in 2014 it is not an explicit exceptionsto all needing the baptism of water for salvation ?

Steven Speray: 
Water Baptism is the necessity of precept not a necessity of means. 

Once again this is according to the controversial Letter of the Holy Office 1949. We do not know any one who will be saved in 2014 according to precept or means. This will be for God to judge. So there is no exception here to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in 2014 and there are no exceptions of necessity of precept or means.
For the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 those who are saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are visible to us.This is irrational.So there theology is based on an irrationality.

The Church has repeatedly taught that Baptism is not absolutely needed in all circumstances. God can and has saved men without baptism. Baptism of Blood is one example and we have examples for them.

The Church has always taught in the dogma that baptism of water and formal entry into the Church is absolutely needed at all time (Cantate Dominco, Council of Florence, Vatican Council II, Ad Gentes 7).
Those who are saved with the baptism of desire or blood can be saved with the baptism of water and God will provide the means.
To assume that the baptism of desire and blood refer to known cases who are saved without the baptism of water, is irrational.Since you do not know any such case.
How can what is unknown  be relevant or an exception to the traditional dogmatic teaching on salvation?

Since we cannot see or meet any exception, to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in 2014, the baptism of desire is irrelevant to the Feeneyite position, i.e defacto every one needs the baptism of water in the Catholic Church and there are no exceptions?
Everybody needs baptism but not out of means such as in extraordinary cases.

Every body needs the baptism of water according to the dogma do you know someone in 2014 who is an exception? Precept or means?
-Lionel Andrades

Steven Speray is unaware of Cushingism : uses an irrationality in the interpretation of Vatican Council II

What the Archbishop of Mosul has not said

Our sufferings today are the prelude of those you, Europeans and Western Christians, will also suffer in the near future. I lost my diocese. The physical setting of my apostolate has been occupied by Islamic radicals who want us converted or dead. But my community is still alive.

Please, try to understand us. Your liberal and democratic principles are worth nothing here. You must consider again our reality in the Middle East, because you are welcoming in your countries an ever growing number of Muslims. Also you are in danger. You must take strong and courageous decisions, even at the cost of contradicting your principles. You think all men are equal, but that is not true: Islam does not say that all men are equal. Your values are not their values. If you do not understand this soon enough, you will become the victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your home.-Archbishop Amel Nona Chaldean Catholic Archeparch of Mosul, now exiled in Erbil Corriere della Sera August 9, 2014

The Archbishop has not said that according to Vatican Council II  all Muslims in Mosul need 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.Spiritually he has not helped them.
This is the official teaching of the Catholic Church according to the text of Vatican Council II.It is in continuity with the past on the issue of other religions and salvation.
There is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Since those who are saved through the 'good and holy' things in other religions (NA 2), seeds of the Word (AG 11),elements of sanctification and truth (LG 8) etc are not known to us in the present times. So they are not exceptions to  the traditional teaching on salvation.
All the Muslims in Mosul according to Vatican Council II need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation i.e to go to Paradise and Hell.
We cannot meet anyone in Mosul who does not need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.We cannot get to know  a person there who can be saved in invincible ignorance and with the baptism of water.Those who are saved as such are not known to us on earth.
According to Ad Gentes 7 all need the baptism of water for salvation. This would include those saved with the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance, seeds of the Word, 'elements of sanctification and truth' etc. 
In Heaven there are only Catholics according to Vatican Council II.They are  those persons who have 'faith and baptism'.
We do not know of any exception. No extra ordinary way is visible to us. However if a Muslim is saved while he is in religion, he would be saved through Jesus and the Catholic Church, Jesus' Mystical Body. In Heaven he would be a Catholic.However for us this is only a possibility. We do not know any case over the last 100 years or more. A possibility, a hypothetical case cannot be a defacto exception to the traditional teaching.
This 'possibility', could be saved through the good things in his religion which will lead him to Jesus and the Church. There is the case of the ex Imam  at the Divine Retreat Centre Pota, India.He  converted into the Catholic Church after reading the Quran. He found things do not add up.His search for the Truth led him to the Catholic Church finally.
If a Muslim is saved and is in Heaven he has received Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.He is no longer a Muslim. There are no known exceptions to the ordinary means of salvation( faith and baptism) on earth or in Heaven.The baptism of water in the Catholic Church is the norm to get to Heaven.
 Archbishop Amel Nona  has not announced this to the Muslims in Mosul. 
-Lionel Andrades

Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) District Italy (Albano) and the District USA are in conflict

The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) District Italy (Albano) and the District USA are in conflict and in a confusing position. No one is issuing a clarification to clear things up.

According to the SSPX priests with whom I have spoken to  there are no known cases in 2014 of persons saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire. They are possibilities but these cases are not physically visible to us in Italy.This is obvious. We cannot see the dead who are now in Heaven.
Yet books published by the SSPX USA and also their website supports the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 position. The Letter  issued during the pontificate of  Pope Pius XII infers that the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the literal and traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.In other words, for them to be exceptions, they would have to be known and visible. It is saying that there are known and visible exceptions in the USA. So for the SSPX (USA) all do  not need to enter the Church in the present times(2014).

Mons. Fellay
In his Letter to Friends and Benefactors 82 Bishop Bernard Fellay also repeated this error.The DIstrict Superior of the SSPX Italy has also repeated the same irrationality.

So what is their final decision ? We can see the dead on earth? No one is responding.
-Lionel Andrades

SSPX (USA) repeats the error in the Letter of the Holy Office : contradicts the dogma defined three times and also Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7)

Lumen Gentium 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance) means saved in invincible ignorance followed by the baptism of water according to Ad Gentes 7



Italy: Muslim teenager viciously beaten by her family for being “too Western”

Italy: Muslim teenager viciously beaten by her family for being “too Western”

663321-domestic_violence-1390686010-550-640x480European authorities are banking their nations’ futures on the supposition that the vast majority of Muslims on the continent are Westernized, or will become Westernized without difficulty. Yet stories like these suggest that they have been foolhardy to stake so much on this unproven assumption.
“Deemed ‘too Western’ teenager beaten by family,” ANSA, November 21, 2014 (thanks to Insubria):
(ANSA) – Forli, November 21 – A 15-year-old girl who was viciously beaten up by her family and locked in a bathroom because she was “too Western” has been entrusted to the social services after hospital treatment.
The girl, who was not identified, was treated for a head injury and wounds to the face, shoulders and ribs inflicted by her Moroccan father and brothers who beat and punched her, police sources said.
The girl herself called the police and said she had been beaten after going for a walk with a classmate in the centre of Forli, a city in the central Emilia-Romagna region.
During the stroll she met a friend of her brothers who took a photo of her and sent it to her parents with an offensive remark.
Investigators are considering whether to charge her father, who has lived in Italy for 20 years, and whether to press an additional charge of kidnapping against her brothers, the sources said.

When will Fr.Brian Harrison say he interprets Vatican Council II as traditional with respect to ecumenism, religious liberty and other religions?

When will Fr.Brian Harrison say that he interprets Vatican Council II  with a continuity with the past with respect to ecumenism, religious liberty and other religions? For him Vatican Council II is traditional with respect to ecumenism and religious liberty.I agree with him.
I am waiting for him to find the final jigsaw puzzle and place it all together. If Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus since LG 16,LG 8, NA2, UR 3 etc do not refer to known and visble to us cases in 2014, then the Council is traditional on other religions and Christian communities.There are no known exceptions to the dogma.There is no salvation known outside the Church.Ecclesiology has not been changed since the irrational premise is not being used.We are no more saying that we can see the dead in Heaven who are known exceptions to the traditional teaching on other religions.
-Lionel Andrades

Fr.Brian Harrison interprets ecumenism and religious liberty in Vatican Council II as a continuity with the past : I agree with him

Vatican Council II has a continuity with the past with respect to the other religions ( dogma on salvation), ecumenism and religous liberty

Brother Andre Marie MICM...?

Fr.Brian Harrison like Bro. Andre Marie MICM affirm the literal and traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In the sense that there are no exceptions.
However at the same time they will not say that the Letter of the Holy office 1949 was wrong to infer that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, are relevant to the dogma and so could not be exceptions.
Instead they will go into theology and say correctly that there are no exceptions.
Similarly, since they both infer that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are known and visible to us, they extend this irrational reasoning to Vatican Council II.

So for both of them LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc contradict the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Feeneyite version.
If they admitted that there is no known and visible exception to the dogmatic teaching ( all need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church in the present times) they could say that the Letter of the Holy Office is factually incorrect. Also, Vatican Council II does not contradict the traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism, unless one assumes that people saved in Heaven are physically visible and known on earth to be explicit exceptions to the dogma.If one uses this irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II text, then the Council emerges as a break with Tradition.
So on one hand they affirm the dogma and on the other hand they infer that the baptism of desire etc are visible and known to be exceptions.
Fr.Harrison in one post on the Internet sais he affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus but is not a Feeneyite.
These are the conflicting positions that have been coming across to us, even from the SSPX and their supporters.http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.i...

Vatican Council II has a continuity with the past with respect to the other religions ( dogma on salvation), ecumenism and religous liberty

The Eucharist: Accept No Substitutions.

The Eucharist: Accept No Substitutions.

As it is known, Catholics believe that by partaking of Holy Communion, we are eating and drinking the literal Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (transubstantiation). It is not a symbol, nor is it a metaphor, nor do we believe, as the Lutherans, that Jesus is with the bread and wine (consubstantiation). Once consecrated, the bread and wine cease to be, and we are left with the Body and Blood.
It’s widely known that the Catholic Church doesn’t allow non-Catholics to receive the Eucharist (read about it here), but what about the flip side of that coin? If for some reason a Catholic is attending a Protestant service, can they partake in communion?
No, they cannot. Under no circumstances are Catholics to receive communion from a Protestant denomination.
The rule is outline in the Code of Canon Law 844:
Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone.
Receiving communion is the most important part of our faith. It’s not just a big deal; it’s THE biggest deal there is. The entire Mass is centered on the Eucharist. It’s the crux of our salvation. When we present ourselves before the Eucharist, we are literally standing at the feet of our savior.
As Catholics, we must confirm with our words and actions that we believe in the real presence of Christ as the Eucharist. This is why we genuflect before the altar, and why, we must first clear our heart of mortal sin through reconciliation before receiving.
By taking communion in a church that does not accept our beliefs of the Eucharist, we are equating the real presence with a symbolic gesture, and that is irreverent to the Church, and a sin.
But, regardless of the law, I can’t understand why a faithful Catholic would want to receive from anywhere other than the Catholic Church in the first place. When we take the Eucharist, we bind ourselves to the Father, body and soul. We renew our spirit, strengthen our faith, and rejoice in the unconditional love and grace that God has for us.
There is nothing for Catholics in the communion of other churches. No added grace. No redemption. No salvation. For us, it is an empty, incomplete action. Why would we want to celebrate that?
Now, there is a second part to Canon Law 844 that should be explained. It states:
Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers  in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
At a first glance, this might make everything I just said irrelevant, but lets take a closer look at the stipulations.
First, receiving outside of the Church is permitted only when it isimpossible for a Catholic to approach a Catholic priest. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, we need to take note of the part of the law: in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
This means that if a Catholic is to receive outside of the Catholic Church, he or she must do so in a church where the Eucharist is also recognized as the literal Body and Blood of Christ, and was consecrated by a validly ordained priest (valid, being contingent upon the Roman Church Authority and not our personal opinion).
With these restrictions in mind, a Catholic can only receive the Eucharist at an Orthodox Church. Though, through a schism, we are not in complete communion with the Orthodox Church, they are the only other Christian church where the Catholic Church recognizes the sacraments and ordination as valid.
Understandably, all this can cause Catholics to feel a bit awkward at other church services, and sometimes we might feel as if we’re offending other Christians by denying ourselves communion. However, when it comes to Church teaching and law, our feelings should play not part in the matter, nor should the opinions of others.
As Catholics, our lives are a perpetual witness to the faith. Let us not compromise that faith by pretending that Real Presence exists anywhere else.