Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Catholic apologetics on salvation has been changed

I've done a number of blog posts criticising the approach to understanding and tackling Islam taken by various people, notably the zealous Evangelical David Wood, and the American Syrian Catholic Robert Spencer. In the comments to one of these posts a reader recommended a book by a Jesuit who hails from the Levant, Samir Khalil Samir, which proved to be excellent. Samir has given a very interesting interview to Edward Pentin, in which he explores the way the West is seen from the Arab Muslim perspective, an important factor, obviously, in these attacks.-Joseph Shaw

Once again Joseph Shaw refers to David Wood and Robert Spencer and avoids the real issue. Robert Spencer like Joseph Shaw and Catholics in general have watered down Catholic doctrine on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church Church, Islam, and other religions.They  have accepted the objective error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which has changed apologetics on other religions.
Islam still teaches that everyone needs to convert to avoid Hell.
Pope Pius XII instead, changed Catholic doctrine on exclusive salvation. He changed the meaning of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS)  and this was done blatantly and in public.He was saying in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case that not all Jews ( and other non Catholics) need to convert into the Catholic Church. It seems he put personal security and that of the Church above the proclamation of the Faith ( at that time Israel was a new state).Or he was just ignorant of the error.He brought in an irrational theory i.e the baptism of desire (BOD) and blood (BOB), were exceptions to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This would be possible if BOD and BOB were known in personal cases.But how can people in Heaven be known exceptions to the Feeneyite traditional interpretation of the dogma ?. How could they be exceptions on earth to all needing to formally enter the Church ?
This was a break with Tradition .It was heresy.
It was irrationality which a simple person with no theological background could even detect.
Today Catholics like Joseph Shaw and Robert Spencer interpret the Boston Case, the Letter of the Holy Office  1949 and Vatican Council II with the same irrationality from the pontificate of Pius XII.
We see Islam still maintaining their teaching on exclusive salvation in their religion and this appeals to Christians who convert to their religion.While the Catholic Church presents a confused and wishy washy image of itself.In the churches they proclaim the necessity of Jesus for salvation but not the necessity of the Church. 
Professors of theology like Joseph Shaw, Thomas Pink and John Lamont who feature on Rorate Caeli all have rejected the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
For them :
1) BOD and BOB refer to personally known cases in 2015. Otherwise these cases  would not be exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, as the dogma said authoritively for centuries.
2) They have exchanged traditional Feeneyism for Cushingism.Feeneyism says there are no exceptions to the  traditional strict interpretation of the dogma. Cushingism says there are exceptions. The baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I)are exceptions for Cushingites.
3) They assume there are non Catholics in the present times who are saved with BOD, BOB and I.I who are exceptions to EENS. This is irrational. Since these non Catholics if they are saved as such (without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church) are in Heaven. So how can they be exceptions on earth to EENS?
Also how could Shaw, Pink and Lamont know of any one in the present times who will be saved outside the Church i.e without faith and baptism?
Joseph Shaw, Thomas Pink, Johm Lamont and Rober Spencer are all using Cushingism, instead of Feeneyism, to interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus.I don't.
So for the Cushingites Lumen Gentium 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance) is an explicit exception to the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This irrationality is the basis of the new theology which they accept.The Magisterium accepts it.For all of them Vatican Council II is a break with the old ecclesiology. For me it is not .
Joseph Shaw will not affirm Vatican Council II like me since he is under the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales . They grant him canonical permission to teach theology. Permission is only given to Cushingites.
New Catholic at Rorate Caeili only interprets Vatican Council II according to Cushingism. If he inteprets Vatican Council II according to Feeneyism he will get a phone call from a Reformed Judaism rabbi who teaches Ecumenism at the Angelicum University in Rome. This has happened before. They will accuse him of being anti-Semitic. They will threathen him.
Similarly Fr.John Zuhlsdorf and Michael Voris have to say not every one needs to be a card carrying member of the Church. They have to afffirm Cushingism. This is heresy. They have affirmed this heresy over the last few months to  protect their media interests.No 'trapping lies and falsehoods' here.
Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Di Noia have also rejected the traditional Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma in interviews given to the National Catholic Register.They told Edward Pentin that there were exceptions to the dogma mentioned in Vatican Council II ( according to Card. Muller) or people whom they knew,Anglicans, who will go to Heaven as Protestants, as if they could know.( Abp. Di Noia).
So doctrine on salvation has been changed in the Catholic Church mainly in response to the Jewish Left, while the Muslims have kept intact their doctrine on exclusive salvation.
Due to personal interests, like protecting their careers and lifestyle, Catholics are not proclaiming the original Faith. They have changed the teachings of the Church with the permission of popes and cardinals.
They are also not objecting to the Vatican wanting the Society of St. Pius X and the Franciscans of the Immaculate to interpret Vatican Council II acording to Cushingism instead of Feeneyism.

This is the result, in Fr. Samir's words, quoted by Joseph Shaw.
Many radical Islamists appear to come from European countries where secularism has taken the most hold. How much does such an environment help fuel Islamist violence?
It seems clear that a good part of the terrorists are coming from Europe. I just read something from Al-Azhar University [Islam’s leading university in Cairo], saying that there are at least 4,000 Muslims coming from Europe. Between them, there are a lot of Christians — and from Belgium, especially — who converted to Islam. In some quarters in Brussels (in particular, Molenbeek) or other places, there is a concentration of jihadists. There are parts there where police cannot even enter. They are defended by jihadists blocking the police.
So the situation is very strange: people who are no longer Christians, who were once Christians and who are attracted by this violent behavior in the name of God. That means a deep religious crisis in the Christian, Catholic Churches — and at the same time hard, fanatical propaganda from Islamic entities. Both [radical secularism and Islamism] are condemned. Most Muslims see this approach of Islam as not the right one, especially in our time. And for Christians, obviously, to think that someone is becoming religious because he is fighting for God is absurd.
So there are a lot of people who are lost, thousands of them, in Europe, Brussels and elsewhere, and the Church has to do something. The Church is doing things here and there, but it’s the beginning of a movement — to give back the true sense of faith, of God, of what our role is today in the world. We can help more by being faithful to the Gospel, rather than adopting feudal solutions taken from some verses of the Quran.http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/middle-east-scholar-islam-needs-a-renewal-of-reason/#ixzz3sQ31n8QV
-Lionel Andrades