The Manelli families must confirm that Fr.Fidenzio Volpe OFM Cap, uses a false reasoning which he imposes on the religious of the Franciscans of the Immaculate (F.I) founded by Fr.Stefano Manelli F.I.This falsehood is the basis of coercion and persecution.It is illegal.
1.Fr.Volpi the Commissioner of the F.I, assumes there are known exceptions in 2015 to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.For him there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He rejects this infallible teaching with his 'known cases'.(If there were no known cases there would be no exceptions for him).
2.He assumes there are magisterial documents before 1949 which identify these known exceptions to the dogma.
3. For him Vatican Council II (LG 16,LG 8,NA 2,UR 3 etc) oppose extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Council becomes a break with the past when he uses this fantasy-reasoning.
It is an irrational premise, a small theological point which he uses to change the interpretation of Vatican Council II.For the F.I his message is - accept it or be persecuted !.
I asked him on my blog if the F.I can accept Vatican Council II without the false premise and conclusion.Neither will he or the Secretary General Fr.Alfonso Bruno or Fr.Angelo Geiger answer.
Like them traditionalists, unfortunately, also use the same error, unknowingly. Among them are Mons. Bruno Gherardini, Roberto De Mattei, Fr.Serafina Lanzetta F.I and Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci, the District Superior of the SSPX at Albano.They have accepted this irrationality ( visible-dead theory) which originated in the Marchetti letter of 1949.Since 1949 the magisterium has approved it.
The Vatican Press Office has not denied that the F.I, among them relatives of Fr.Stefano Manelli F.I, have to endorse Vatican Council II, in which references to salvation (NA 2, UR 3 etc) must be considered to be visible and known in reality in 2014-2105, for them to be exceptions to traditional outside the Church there is no salvation.
These persons, though dead, are living exceptions, the F.I must accept, to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church and the Syllabus of Errors.So they have to allege that all Jews, Muslims and other non Catholics do not have to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.This was the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II taught also to lay members of the Third Order of the F.I.
When this error of the dead being exceptions to Tradition, was pointed out to Fr.Frederico Lombardi , I received the general letter sent to many. He said this is a 'sensitive subject'. He did not address any specific point on my blog.
He did not deny that the F.I are being forced to interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational premise.This makes the Council a break with the doctrines associated with the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM).
This error was part of the religious formation of the F.I during the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI but the community affirmed extra ecclesiam nulla salus in their publications Il Settimanale di Padre Pio and Christ to the World.
Their magazine on mission, Christ to the World, published from the Propaganda Fide office in Rome, was suppressed by the Vicariate for over a year since it said the Church has not retracted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The real objection it seems is not to the TLM, but extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Pope Benedict XVI issued Summorum Pontificum knowing that Vatican Council II would be interpreted with the result, of the irrational premise and conclusion.This is acceptable to the political Left.This is the norm for Fr.Fidenzio Volpi, Cardinal Braz de Avez, Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Cardinal Luiz Ladaria and Archbishop Augustine de Noia.They impose a lie upon all Catholics.This can be verified on line in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission(ITC).
Why must Catholics accept Vatican Council II with this irrationality ? Fr.Lombardi will not answer.
Catholics are being forced to proclaim a lie and are persecuted if they do not conform.This is coercion. It is illegal.
If I am needed I would be available as a resource person, free of charge, to explain what I have written here. There are priests in Rome who agree with me.
-Lionel Andrades
There has been a factual error in the Marchetti letter which the F.I are not obliged to follow.No Catholic should be obliged to follow it.
The Manelli families must reject the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 , which made the original mistake, now being imposed on the whole Church.
As proof, they can ask their lawyer to see an interview of Cardinal Gerhard Muller by Edward Pentin for the National Catholic Register placed on the Vatican website. There are other documents too.
Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) interprets Vatican Council II with the same irrationality.So this would be a false norm, set for the F.I. It is not part of the Deposit of the Faith before 1949.Yes, Our Lady said at Fatima that the dogma of the faith would be lost.
The Manelli families, brothers and sisters of Fr.Stefano Manelli, must stop the coercion.They could ask their lawyer, not to begin litigation, but to get a response from Fr.Volpi.
Do members of the Manelli family in the F.I have to use a false premise and conclusion in the interpretation of magisterial documents including Vatican Council II ? She could ask him.
The proof is there on the Vatican website if their lawyer would check these documents.
1. The interview of Fr.Gerhard Muller by Edward Pentin, which is also available on Edward Pentin's website.1
2.The International Theological Commission's papers Christianity and the World Religions and The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptised which can be read on the ITC-Vatican website.
3.The Balamand Declaration says there is no more an ecumenism of return.(N.30). etc.
This is a major oversight in the Catholic Church since 1949 and is related to Catholic mission , liturgy, the TLM, ecumenism,the Nicene Creed, Vatican Council II, Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257,845,846), mortal sin... and the Manelli families simply being Catholic.
For me there are no known exceptions to the dogma mentioned in Vatican Council II. Vatican Council II is traditional.The interpretation of Fr.Fidenzio Volpi, Cardinal Braz de Avez and Cardinal Muller are heretical, irrational and non traditional.This is the interpretation rejected by the F.I.
If I am needed I would be available as a resource person, free of charge, to explain what I have written here. There are priests in Rome who agree with me.
-Lionel Andrades
1.
That has been discussed, but here too there has been a development of all that was said in the Church, beginning with St. Cyprian, one of the Fathers of the Church, in the 3rd century. Again, the perspective is different between then and now. In the 3rd century, some Christian groups wanted to be outside the Church, and what St. Cyprian said is that without the Church, a Christian cannot be saved. The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” He who is aware of the presence of revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly and, not only in his conscience, in his heart, to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him. But we cannot say that those who are inculpably ignorantof this truth are necessarily condemned for that reason. We must hope that those who do not belong to the Church through no fault of their own, but who follow the dictates of their God-given conscience, will be saved by Jesus Christ whom they do not yet know. Every person has the right to act according to his or her own conscience. However, if a Catholic says today: “I am going to put myself outside the Church,” we would have to respond that without the Church, that person is in danger of losing salvation. Therefore we must always examine the context of these statements. The problem that many people have is that they are linking statements of doctrine from different centuries and different contexts – and this cannot be done rationally without a hermeneutic of interpretation. We need a theological hermeneutic for an authentic interpretation, but interpretation does not change the content of the teaching.
2.
'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)...'-International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions
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. 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.- Christianity and the World Religions 1997,International Theological Commission
59. The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) offers further specifications. “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens.
When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”. - The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without the being baptized', International Theological Commission,2007
3.
30. To pave the way for future relations between the two Churches,
passing beyond the outdated ecclesiology of return to the Catholic Church
connected with the problem which is the object of this document, special
attention will be given to the preparation of future priests and of all those
who, in any way, are involved in an apostolic activity carried on in a place
where the other Church traditionally has its roots.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment