Friday, November 20, 2015

Father Z didn't notice the mistake in Lumen Gentium

First, the writer utilizes Lumen Gentium as an authoritative witness to the point he is trying to make.  However, Lumen gentium authoritatively affirms others things as well, such as the obligation we have to submit to properly defined and taught doctrine (not always a Jesuit strong point), and that those who resist membership in the Church, knowing her for what she is, cannot be saved.  Lumen gentium clearly upholds traditional doctrine about the Church’s hierarchical structure and insists on a qualitative difference between the priesthood of the ordained and of the laity.   There are more items, but that’s enough for now.- Fr.John Zuhlsdorf
Related image
For John Zuhlsdorf  on his blog 1 refers to the traditional teachings in Lumen Gentium which the Jesuits ignore. 
He considers ' those who resist membership in the Church, knowing her for what she is, cannot be saved.'  (Lumen Gentium 14) as being a traditional doctrine.

He does not realize that this line in Lumen Gentium  14 2 is there because of the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.
This line in Vatican Council II was a mistake.

It also contradicts the passge in Lumen Gentium 14 which says 'Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.'1 

15_11_19_tweet_01

Here are the some of the historical steps to this error in Lumen Gentium 14.

1. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston 3 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII assumes the baptism of desire (BOD), baptism of blood (BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) refer to explicit cases, personally known to us.It also assumes that these cases exclude the baptism of water. It assumes the passages in red (see below) are explicit for us and so contradict the dogmatic teaching ( passages in blue). We know this is irrational and a mistake. The passages in red are really implicit, invisible for us and known only to God.So they cannot be exceptions or even relevant to the passages in blue.2

2. The excommunication was not lifted during Vatican Council II. Generations of Catholics grew up believing that the Church had changed its teachings on extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).They were told there was salvation outside the Church and  every one did not need to convert, they did not have to be ' a card carrying member of the Church' .

3. The Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing did not issue a denial when the Boston newspapers stated that the Church had changed its teaching on salvation.The Jewish Left newspapers  said that Fr. Leonard Feeney was not allowed to hold the rigorist interpretation of the dogma. At that time the state of Israel was new and influential.

4.The Archbishop of Boston prohibited Catholics from visiting the St. Benedict Center and Fr. Leonard Feeney's priestly faculties were taken away.The Holy Office in Rome supported the Archbishop in the doctrinal error i.e BOD,BOB and I.I were considered explicit and so became  exceptions to the traditional interpretation of EENS.
This was irrational. Since BOD, BOB and I.I cases who are  saved, would be in Heaven.They could not be exceptions on earth.Also no one could say that a particular person could be saved with BOD and without the baptism of water.

5.The Archbishop was supported by the Jesuits who expelled Fr. Leonard Feeney from their community.The Jesuit theologians began to cite the Baltimore Catechism (1808) in their defence.It assumed 1) implicit desire for the baptism of water in a hypothetical case was the same as seen- in - the -flesh baptism of water and  2) these theoretical cases were visible  'baptisms' so they were placed in the  Baptism Section of the catechism.

6. So now in the Church there are  three baptisms and not one baptism as is mentioned in the Nicene Creed.This was heresy and Rome did not correct it.There were also no known cases of BOD, BOB or I.I without the baptism of water.These 'baptisms' cannot be given like the baptism of water, which is visible and repeatable.They are invisible for us and so they were irrelevant to the teachings on baptism and should not have been placed in the baptism section.
The confusion was there in the Council of Trent which only mentions implicit desire(it does not refer to it as being explicit or a known baptism).The Baltimore Catechism developed it. It was included in the Catechism of Pope Pius X.

7.The Archbishop of Boston was made a cardinal and was active at Vatican Council II along with the Jesuits.They were ready to implement the new doctrine. They accepted BOD, BOB and I.I as exceptions to the traditional interpretation of EENS. The understanding was : not every one needed to enter the Church. There were exceptions. Being saved in invincible ignorance, for example, was an exception to the dogma EENS.This 'explicitly known person' would not be condemned. So Vatican Council II, says whosoever ' knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved'.This is a new teaching. The traditional teaching was every one needed to enter the Church not only those who knew. This was a break with St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Francis Xavier and the Jesuit missionaries.They were Feeneyites ( no known exceptions).

WE CANNOT KNOW WHO KNOWS
We cannot know who knows or does not know and will be saved accordingly.So why had they to mention it in Vatican Council ? 
They could mention it because of the error upheld by the Archbishop of Boston which was supported by Pope Pius XII and then even Cardinal Ottaviani.Rome supported Cushingism ( there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS) 

NO LINK BETWEEN I.I AND EENS
Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits wrongly made the link between being saved in invincible ignorance and the dogma EENS.There was no connection between the two.
'
Anyway at the practical level today Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) says all need 'faith and baptism for salvation and Fr. John Zuhlsdorf and Fr. Spadero  S.J do not know any one in 2015 who will be saved in invincible ignorance and without faith and baptism.There are no objective cases in 2015.

So the line '' knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved' was a mistake.It should not have been placed in Vatican Council II. It is confusing.It refers to a theoretical, hypothetical possibility known only to God. It would also have to be followed with the baptism of water since this is the dogmatic teaching on salvation and baptism.

DON'T MIX UP INVISIBLE AND VISIBLE CASES
If Pope Francis and the Vatican Curia want to accept this line, this error, fine, as along as they do not assume it refers to explicit cases in 2015.
Rationally, we know Vatican Council II does not contradict the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.LG 14 does not contradict itself , nor the dogma EENS.The Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake and the mistake was planted all over Vatican Council. Implicit cases were assumed to be explicit( LG 14, LG 8, NA 2, UR 3, AG 11 etc).

It seems as if Vatican Council II was called to implement the error in the 1949 Boston Case.
-Lionel Andrades

__________________________





1
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/11/when-jesuits-quote-jesus-and-when-they-dont/


2
This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. 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...
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II

3
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE

Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God...
Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, <Singulari quadam>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, <Quanto conficiamur moerore>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1677)...
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.
Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "" which is prescribed by the sacred canons.
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.
In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,
Your Excellency's most devoted,
F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.
A. Ottaviani, Assessor.
(Private); Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM

No comments: