Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Cardinal Raymond Burke approved the article. Fr.Hardon like Cardinal Marchetti makes this wrong inference in the article.

Comments from the blog post Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error 1
Anonymous:
Lionel, you are failing to read the sentence before those you are emphasizing:

"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."
Lionel:
Baptism is necessary for every one.
All need faith and baptism says Vatican Council II (AG 7).
The Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water says the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257.
If there is an exception, it would be known only to God.
So why mention something which is unknown to us? This was the error in 1949.
_______________

Therefore, for any who have NOT had 'the possibility of asking for this sacrament' its effects may be attained through desire.
Lionel:
We do not and cannot know of any such case.
So why was it mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Why was it inferred to be an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma?
The fault was with Cardinal Francesco Marchetti.
He was implying that these cases were examples of known salvation outside the Church and so Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong.
In other words he personally knew of persons saved as such and so they were contradictions to the dogma.
Why mention something which is hypothetical and then also suggest that this case was saved without the baptism of water? How would Cardinal Marchetti know ?___________________

Otherwise, you would deny Beatitude to many saints and prophets of the Old Testament, to mention of a few.
Lionel:
The prophets and saints of the Old Testament who were saved, went to Heaven only after the Resurrection of the awaited Jewish Messiah. Until that time they had to wait in Abraham's Bosom.__________________________

Anonymous:
Thus, there is no contradiction in what was asserted by Cardinal Burke and Fr. Hardon and others.
Lionel:
Like Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani, Fr.John Hardon assumed that being saved with implicit desire ( and without the baptism of water) or in invincible ignorance, were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma.This is accepted by Cardinal Raymond Burke.

We now know that those who are saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance, allegedly without the baptism of water, are in Heaven. So how can they be explicit exceptions on earth to the strict interpretation of the dogma, it is asked.This was a factual mistake made by Cardinal Burke and the late Fr.John Hardon.Fr.John Hardon also assumed that the Church Fathers and Church documents before 1949 tell us that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma. There is no such magisterial document before 1949. They only refer to persons being saved with implicit desire or in inculpable ignorance. They do not tell us that these cases are known to us.Nor is it said that they are explicit exceptions to the dogma. This has to be inferred- wrongly. Fr.Hardon like Cardinal Marchetti makes this wrong inference in the article.
 

Fr.John Hardon also assumed that the Church Fathers and Church documents before 1949 tell us that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma. There is no such magisterial document before 1949. They only refer to persons being saved with implicit desire or in inculpable ignorance. They do not tell us that these cases are known to us.Nor is it said that they are explicit exceptions to the dogma. This has to be inferred- wrongly. Fr.Hardon like Cardinal Marchetti makes this wrong inference in the article.Cardinal Raymond Burke approved the article. -Lionel Andrades


 
 


Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Mass
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/cardinal-raymond-burke-interprets.html


Rome made a mistake in 1949 and Fr.John Hardon did not notice it
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/rome-made-mistake-in-1949-and-frjohn_3.html


The Catechumen you refer to is a hypothetical case for you and me. So it is not an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : Fr.John Hardon too did not notice this. http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/the-catechuman-you-refer-to-is.html

For Cardinal Raymond Burke these hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/for-cardinal-raymond-burke-these.html


VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS 
 

 
1
March 4, 2015
Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/cardinal-raymond-burke-approved-fr-john.html
Posted by at
Labels: , ,

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

You ask "So, why mention something which is unknown to us?"

So that none of us would be presumptuous in judging with certainty that which only the Eternal Trinity judges and knows.

And because it is a fact that it is possible, under certain conditions, that some could and can not obtain Baptism by water.

Baptism by water is the ordinary means in the economy of Salvation, but the Trinity may grant through baptism of desire the same fruits as an extra-ordinary means, if the person has no possibility of receiving Baptism of water.

It seems quite clear and fully coherent.

March 31, 2015 at 3:42 PM
Catholic Mission said...


Lionel:
I do not mean it in a theological sense but - literally.
I mean it in a physical sense.
We physically cannot see any person saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.
The case does not exist. The person does not exist in our reality.
I cannot meet someone saved as such today.
So how can there be any exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma? It's a zero case.
____________
Anonymous:
So that none of us would be presumptuous in judging with certainty that which only the Eternal Trinity judges and knows.
Lionel:
For us there is no case to judge.There cannot be any physical, known case.
___________________

And because it is a fact that it is possible, under certain conditions, that some could and can not obtain Baptism by water.
Lionel:
Yes theoretically but practically we do not know any such case.
They would have to be known for them to be exceptions to the traditional teaching of the dogma.
The dogma tells us all need to be formal members of the Church and objectively we do not and cannot know of any exception.
_____________________

Baptism by water is the ordinary means in the economy of Salvation, but the Trinity may grant through baptism of desire the same fruits as an extra-ordinary means, if the person has no possibility of receiving Baptism of water.
Lionel:
If God did choose this we would not know about it. So how could these cases be relevant to all needing to enter the Church with no exceptions in 2015?
It has no link with the dogma.This was the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which was not corrected.
_______________________

It seems quite clear and fully coherent.
Lionel:
I am not referring to theology.
The theology of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was built upon a factual error. The theology assumes that the dead who are now saved in Heaven, were there without the baptism of water and these cases are presently known to us.So it is inferred that they are exceptions to the dogmatic teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
______________




April 1, 2015 at 1:09 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)