| ||||
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
The Rosary
I knew Willy
Did They “Bury a Bum” at the Vatican?
March 2, 2015 by Fr. Dwight Longenecker
My latest article for CRUX highlights the controversy that has arisen over PewSitter’s offensive headline about the burieal of homeless pilgrim Willy Herteleer
Go here to read the whole articleOn Dec. 12, Willy died in a hospital near the Vatican and a few of his friends began to look for a burial place for him. German journalist Paul Badde, author of “The Face of God” — a book about the Holy Veil of Manopello — had just become a brother in the Confraternity of the Campo Santo of the Teutons. The Campo Santo Teutonico, or Teutonic Cemetery, is a small piece of land within the Vatican walls donated by Charlemagne as a burial plot for pilgrims of German or Flemish descent who died on pilgrimage to Rome.Because Willy Herteleer was Flemish, Badde suggested that he be buried in the historic Vatican cemetery. Angela Ambrogetti, writing for the Catholic News Agency, recalled how “Willy’s friends organized everything, obtaining the necessary permission from the Vatican, Italy, and Belgium, where Willy began his life. They made contact with his family — his four children whom he had not seen for decades.”This simple act of charity might have remained no more than a touching story of a few Catholics performing a corporal work of mercy by giving a dignified burial to a poor man. Instead, it has erupted into an online firefight illustrating the polarization within the American Catholic Church.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2015/03/did-they-bury-a-bum-at-the-vatican.html
For many years Willy would come for the Three O'clock Divine Mercy Prayers at the Church Santo Spirito in Rome. He would always wave out to me and greet me with a big smile.
The last I saw him, a few months back ( since I have not been going there for some time) he had a big white beard and had put on weight.The photo above is an old photograph of him.
A few years back he told me he slept under a bridge near the Vatican. He would cook his own meals there.He would not eat meat. He had to avoid it he said for health reasons.
Every morning he would go for Mass at a church near the Vatican.
He liked Rome he said . He liked the churches in Rome and did not want to go to his hometown.He lived an austere life in Rome.
I am glad that he was buried at the Vatican.-Lionel
Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error
The Real Presence Association has posted on its website an article by Fr.John Hardon s.j, Christ to Catholicism. Part two: Dogmatic Ecclesiology, No Salvation Outside of the Church'. Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke has approved it.1
There are factual errors in the article. The same errors are there in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani.
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.
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.
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.
In the recent interview given to Rorate Caeili Cardinal Raymond Burke recommended the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The Catechism in 1257 says the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water. CCC 1257 also says God is not limited to the Sacraments,.This is contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction. It cannot be said all in 2015 need the baptism of water for salvation but some do not.
This confusion comes from the Letter of the Holy Office. The first part of the Letter affirms the traditional interpretation of the dogma which does not mention any exceptions. The second part of the Letter infers that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma. So the second half of the Letter contradicts the first half.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, like the International Theological Commission, assumes that those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance, refer to objective cases. This is a false premise. Then it is assumed that these persons now in Heaven, are explicit exceptions to the strict interpretatiion of the dogma. This is a false conclusion.An irrational premise will produce an irrational conclusion.
Fr.John Hardon also used an irrational premise to create an irrational, non traditional conclusion.
This was approved by Cardinal Raymond Burke who probably also uses the false premise, the Marchetti Inference, to reject the traditional interpretation, the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.For him too the dogma 'developed' in 1949.
-Lionel Andrades
1.
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_032.htm
http://www.hardonsj.org/biography/
Rome made a mistake in 1949 and Fr.John Hardon did not notice it
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
The Council of Trent, Mystici Corporis no where says that these cases are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : Rome made a mistake in 1949
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.
MRyan:
Really, I’ve read both, and can’t see where Fr. Hardon did not notice the alleged "mistake" in the 1949 Holy Office Letter, probably because I could not find the “mistake”.Lionel Andrades wrote:March 3, 2015
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
Let’s see if you can find it for me. One response at a time.
Lionel Andrades wrote:
MRyan:Mystici Corporis does not state that those who are united only by desire are personally known to us and so are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It only mentions these cases are possibilities. It does not state also that these possibilities could not also receive the baptism of water. This sadly has all been inferred by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani.Letter of the Holy Office 1949: These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
Category error. The question before us pertains to the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - meaning, a question of SALVATION, and the conditions necessary to attain this end.
So where does the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus state that those [adults] SAVED by the laver of regeneration are or must be “personally known to us”, when we do not know the interior sanctity of any man, baptized or not? We only know that their salvation is certain IF they persevere in grace. But, seeing that we cannot "see" their souls, we can only say that their salvation is "possible" and conditional, the same with the faith-filled Catechumen the Church considers as one of her own, but not formally so.
So where does the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus state that those [adults] SAVED by the laver of regeneration are or must be “personally known to us”, when we do not know the interior sanctity of any man, baptized or not? We only know that their salvation is certain IF they persevere in grace. But, seeing that we cannot "see" their souls, we can only say that their salvation is "possible" and conditional, the same with the faith-filled Catechumen the Church considers as one of her own, but not formally so.
Lionel:
the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire
United to the Church only by desire? He infers that those saved with implicit desire or the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma. Otherwise why mention them? In other words they are known to us, we can name them. So since they are known to us they become exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma. But how can they be known to us? They are in Heaven. Also how can we say that someone will be saved without the baptism of water and with the baptism of desire? This would be known only to God if it was possible.
It is only because the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumes that these cases are visible, known,objectively seen, nameable that it refers to them. The baptism of desire is irrelevant to the dogma.
_____________________________________
So where does the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus state that those [adults] SAVED by the laver of regeneration are or must be “personally known to us”, when we do not know the interior sanctity of any man, baptized or not?
Lionel:
1.The dogma does not mention that those saved with the baptism of desire are known to us or are an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
2. Experience in daily life tells us it is not possible.
3.Neither does Vatican Council II make this irrational claim.
Yet for you and numerous good Catholics the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma.
2. Experience in daily life tells us it is not possible.
3.Neither does Vatican Council II make this irrational claim.
Yet for you and numerous good Catholics the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma.
The dogma tells us that all need the baptism of water ( saved by the laver of regeneration) for salvation and there is no mention of the baptism of desire.The irrationality came into the Church in 1949.
__________________________________________
We only know that their salvation is certain IF they persevere in grace. But, seeing that we cannot "see" their souls, we can only say that their salvation is "possible" and conditional, the same with the faith-filled Catechumen the Church considers as one of her own, but not formally so.
I've asked you this question before, and all you do is repeat the same fallacy. Now please answer the actual question, or tell me which premise behind it is wrong - and prove it.
I've asked you this question before, and all you do is repeat the same fallacy. Now please answer the actual question, or tell me which premise behind it is wrong - and prove it.
Lionel:
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. Since a theoretical case, a speculative case, cannot be a defacto, objective exception to all needing Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation in 2015. That you still mention this case would suggest that you know who this Catechumen is, personally.
To presume that we personally know this Catechumen is a false premise. Then to conclude that this hypothetical person is an exception to the dogma is a false conclusion. A hypothetical person cannot be an explicit exception.
Fr.John Hardon too did not notice this.
-Lionel Andrades
How can you presume to know who will be saved with the baptism of blood ( martrydom) and without the baptism of water in future or this year?
MRyan:
Moving on.
Lionel Andrades wrote:In the future?”Mryan” wrote:
2. Lionel wrote: "VCII dos not does not state that we personally know or can know in future any one saved without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith". Actually, we do know of several saints martyred in the baptism of blood without benefit of the sacrament of baptism. That the Church includes these narratives in her liturgical texts is proof enough that she holds the baptism of blood as a true doctrine.
Of course not, though we may presume so, just as we cannot know with any certainty those adults who will be saved in the future by water baptism, though we may presume so. So what is the point?
Lionel:
How can you presume to know who will be saved with the baptism of blood ( martrydom) and without the baptism of water in future or this year?
Regarding baptism of water, the Church tells us that the baptism of water is needed for salvation.
______________________________
Lionel Andrades wrote:Does Vatican Council II say that these cases are known to us personally or that they will be saved without the baptism of water in future? These are the two important points for there to be an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.MRyan:Do any of the Church’s salvation dogmas say that these cases of salvation for baptized adults are known to us personally, or that they will be saved [known cases] with the baptism of water in future?Lionel:The Church dogmas on exclusive salvation tell us all need to convert into the Church. Since you allege that the baptism of desire and blood is an exception, implying you personally know some exceptions, I remind you that these cases are not known to you or me.Th fact that the dogma does not mention exceptions, which you consider exceptions, only proves the point I am making here.______________________________
MRyan:
Don’t you see, Lionel, the inherent fallacy at work in your question? The Church, it is true, does not know of any means other than the sacraments that can assure salvation, provided the right dispositions are present (a state of grace), without being able to tell us WHO these adults are (short of canonization). She can tell who the baptized are, but not that they are in fact saved. She can tell us who the catechumens are, and claim them as her own, but she insists that the obligation to be baptized remains, and she makes no claim to the certainty of salvation either before or after baptism (in adults).
Lionel:There are no known exceptions to the dogma. The Church does not name any. Neither can you name any.________________________________
Lionel Andrades wrote:Yes. Since the issue is, 'Are there exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma?' There are none.MRyan wrote:3. And the fact that "VCII dos not does not state that we personally know [in the present] or can know in future any one saved without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith" is entirely irrelevant,MRyan:
Properly understood, there are no exceptions, we can agree.
Lionel:
There are no exceptions to the dogma. We agree. Good. You are saying that the baptism of desire is not relevant or an exception to the dogma!? .
-Lionel Andrades
This is irrational. Even a non Catholic would realize it.Yet this is what is inferred when it is assumed there are exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 in Vatican Council II
MRyan:
VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS ALL MUSLIMS, JEWS IN ROME, ITALY ARE GOING TO HELL
Lionel, you know perfectly well that VCII says no such thing when it clearly stipulates that a conditional path to salvation may be open to them.
Lionel:
Here is the quotation from Vatican Council II.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself “by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II.
Here is the original report.
VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS ALL MUSLIMS, JEWS IN ROME, ITALY ARE GOING TO HELLContrary to what your parish priest has been saying Vatican Council II indicates that all Muslims and Jews in Rome and Italy are on the way to Hell.
So get this message across to the people so that they can conduct Catholic Mission and Evangelization based on the truth.
Do not hide it from Catholics in the parishes that the Bible, the Church and of course Vatican Council II says Jews and Muslims need to convert into the Catholic Church to go to Heaven. All of them.
The Council says this is in two important places .In Ad Gentes 7 it says all people need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for salvation. All means everyone with no exceptions.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself “by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II.
Then Ad Gentes 7 also says those who know about Jesus and the Catholic Church and yet do not enter are on the way to Hell. In Italy Muslims and Jews know about Jesus and the Catholic Church. It is a mortal sin of faith when they do not enter the Catholic Church.
Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it.- Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council IIWhosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II
So ask your parish priest why has he not spoken on this subject?
Is he trying to protect someone?
So many people are going to Hell and he does not speak or write about it?Is he protecting himself?
So get this message across to the people so that they can conduct Catholic Mission and Evangelization based on the truth.
Do not hide it from Catholics in the parishes that the Bible, the Church and of course Vatican Council II says Jews and Muslims need to convert into the Catholic Church to go to Heaven. All of them.
The Council says this is in two important places .In Ad Gentes 7 it says all people need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for salvation. All means everyone with no exceptions.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself “by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II.
Then Ad Gentes 7 also says those who know about Jesus and the Catholic Church and yet do not enter are on the way to Hell. In Italy Muslims and Jews know about Jesus and the Catholic Church. It is a mortal sin of faith when they do not enter the Catholic Church.
Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it.- Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council IIWhosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II
So ask your parish priest why has he not spoken on this subject?
Is he trying to protect someone?
So many people are going to Hell and he does not speak or write about it?Is he protecting himself?
________________________________
MRyan:
Continuing with the article by Fr. White...
Lionel:
Father Thomas Joseph White, OP, in his article Who Will Be Saved? The Council and the Question of Salvation 1uses the Marchetti inference. He assumes there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So for him there would be known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 too.So for him all Jews and Muslims in the present times (2915) would not need to enter the Catholic Church according to Vatican Council II.
You also use the same inference, the same premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. 1 This is the Society of St.Pius X's position which you have been supporting for years.
If someone has died three centuries back allegedly without the baptism of water, for you this case would be an exception to the dogmatic teaching today in 2015. So this deceased person saved with the baptism of blood ( martrydom) and allegeldy without the baptism of water( as if you would know?) becomes an objective exception in 2015 to Ad Gentes 7. So an invisible case becomes an objective exception to the need for all Jews, Muslims and Chrstians to accept Jesus in the Catholic Church.
The fault is not with the Council but you and Fr.White assuming the dead are visible exceptions to the dogma in the present times. This is irrational. Even a non Catholic would realize it.Yet this is what is inferred when it is assumed there are exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 in Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades
1.
I could interpret these passages in Vatican Council II without using the irrational premise and conclusion http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/i-could-interpret-these-passages-in.html
I could interpret these passages in Vatican Council II without using the irrational premise and conclusion http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/i-could-interpret-these-passages-in.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)