Salza/Siscoe: Those who have endorsed the book have acknowledged that there is no other book quite like it, given the sheer breadth and depth of the material covered. For example, one seminary professor and rector has told us that the book contains the most thorough treatment of the doctrine, No Salvation Outside the Church, that he has seen in one single resource. INTERVIEW: Salza & Siscoe unmask Sedevacantism https://akacatholic.com/interview-salza-siscoe-unmask-sedevacantism/#comments
Lionel:
the book contains the most thorough treatment of the doctrine, No Salvation Outside the Church
John Salza, the SSPX and the sedevacantists all use an irrational premise and inference to interpret the dogma extra ecclesiam nullla salus.
So for them it would be difficult to understand what I write,since:
1) They believe the magisterium of Pope Pius XII is infallible and cannot make a mistake on doctrine
1) They believe the magisterium of Pope Pius XII is infallible and cannot make a mistake on doctrine
2) They assume those who are saved with the baptism of desire etc refer to explicit cases, visible in the present times.
3) They assume we humans can see these explicit cases in Heaven and this was possible in 1949 Boston and Vatican Council II 1965.
So all discussion on outside the Church there is no salvation for them must include these three premises.
Then they are comfortable in this reasoning , since this is the reasoning of the popes since Pius XII and is included in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
All of them are also linked in some way to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davis and the other traditionalists of that time, who accepted these three points.
This is also the reasoning of the Jewish Left and so it is politically correct and there are no complications in life,no anti-Semiticsm threats and intimidation.
On the other hand if they did not hold their present position on these three points Salza and Siscoe and would be writing another book on sedevacantism.
They then would only have to accept that if any one says we can see people in Heaven in the present times saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, it would be irrational. It would be a lie. Since physically it is not possible, in general.
I repeat : if any would say that they can meet or talk to people in Heaven in the present times (December 2015) who are saved without formal membership in the Catholic Church, it would be the stuff of fantasy. This is not possible for any pope, cardinal, bishop, priest...
1) So when the magisterium of Pope Pius XII in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 infers that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, it is a lie. There cannot be an explicit case of the baptism of desire for us. So how can there be an exception ?
If any Church Council or document would imply there is such a case it would be irrational.
2.) So it has to be accepted that those who are saved with the baptism of desire etc refer to hypothetical cases ( which could be followed with the baptism of water since this is the dogmatic teaching). They are invisible for us and so they are not relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( with or without the baptism of water).
3) So there was no one in 1949 Boston or 1965 Vatican Council II who could physically see any case of salvation outside the Church.There is still no salvation outside the Church .
Once this is understood and accepted we have the SSPX and the sedevacantists saying there can be no exceptions in Vatican Council II to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So then what is the basis of the sedevacantists sedevacantism if Vatican Council II supports the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
Why should the SSPX object to canonical status in the Church, when Vatican Council II which supports extra ecclesiam nulla salus is traditional on other religions and the old ecumenism ?
I am sure Salza and Siscoe have not touched these points in their discussion of No Salvation Outside the Church and Vatican Council II.For them Vatican Council II is a break with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong and Cardinal Cushing was correct, for them.
Since, they want to believe:-
Since, they want to believe:-
I) The magisterium of Pope Pius XII is infallible and cannot make a mistake on doctrine 2) They assume those who are saved with the baptism of desire etc refer to explicit cases, visible in the present times. 3) They assume we humans can see these explicit cases in Heaven and this was possible in 1949 Boston and Vatican Council II 1965.
-Lionel Andrades
There being exceptions is the irrational reasoning used to interpret Vatican Council II by John Vennari, Chris Ferrara, John Salza http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/there-being-exceptions-is-irrational.html and Louie Verrecchio
John Vennari is not aware of the heresy of Cushingism
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/john-vennari-is-not-aware-of-heresy-of.html
John Vennari is not aware of the heresy of Cushingism
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/john-vennari-is-not-aware-of-heresy-of.html
So if 'the Church' says that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma then where are these people who belong to the soul or body of the Church in 2014? Where are they? What are their names and surnames?
I think ‘the dogma of the faith’ was lost in 1949 at Boston in the Fr.Leonard Feeney Case
DIMOND BROTHERS ASSUME THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS VISIBLE TO US AND SO CRITICIZE JOHN SALZA
I can affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus alongwith implicit baptism of desire etc and I do not have to become a sedevacantist. They can do the same.
MOST HOLY FAMILY MONASTERY SEDEVACANTISTS CONSIDER BAPTISM OF DESIRE DE FACTO AND KNOWABLE IN THE PRESENT TIME
SEDEVACANTISTS SLIP ON BOD UNDERSTANDING AND CRITICIZE POPE JOHN PAUL II
MHFM SLIPS ON BOD DEFINITION AND CRITICIZES SSPX
No comments:
Post a Comment