The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1995) is based on the New Theology and so has errors.We need to go back to the Catechism of the Council of Trent or an older one.
IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED
1.This Catechism( 1995) mentions the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.They do not exist in 2016.They are not known in personal cases.So they were never ever relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).It was a mistake for cardinals Ratzinger and Schonborn to mention them.
It was also a mistake for the Baltimore Catechism(1891)to include the desire for the baptism of water of an unknown catechumen,as a baptism in the baptism section of that Catechism, approved by Cardinal Gibbons.It was as if the desire for the baptism of water of a hypothetical catechuman was a known case.The baptism of desire is unknown and cannot be physically seen or repeated like the baptism of water.
NO TEXT OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
NO TEXT OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
2.This Catechism no where produces the text of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It does not even mention the Council of Florence 1441 or the the other two Councils which defined the dogma on eXclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.Instead it considers a defined dogma as a mere aphorism.The wolves could have been snapping at the heels of Cardinal Ratzinger.So he compromised.
IT IS BASED ON THE NEW IRRATIONAL THEOLOGY
IT IS BASED ON THE NEW IRRATIONAL THEOLOGY
3.It also interprets Outside the Church There is No Salvation with the New Theology.So LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 could all have referred to 'the extra ordinary means of salvation'.They become known exceptions to the dogmatic teaching; to the ordinary means of salvation.For the New Theology, those saved in invincible ignorance, refer to persons saved without the baptism of water.They are not imaginary cases, but real people, personally known in the present times.This is the philosophical basis of the new theology of Rahner and Ratzinger enforced in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
He recently said in an interview published in the daily Avvenire, that extra ecclesiam nulla salus was no more like it was for the the 16th century missionaries.He must have got instructions to issue this statement out of the blue.
He recently said in an interview published in the daily Avvenire, that extra ecclesiam nulla salus was no more like it was for the the 16th century missionaries.He must have got instructions to issue this statement out of the blue.
These mistakes are not there in the pre-Council of Trent catechisms.The Catechism of the Council of Trent refers to 'the desirethereof' as theoretical and hypothetical. It refers to an invisible case.Physically there cannot be a visible case for us humans.
The magisterium made a mistake when the Baltimore Catechism assumes that these imaginary cases are visible and real. They were not hypothethical.They were as explicit as the baptism of water for the Americans in Baltimore.The error would be supported by the Masons of course.
Then there second big break came when the Holy Office 1949 also assumed that these cases were explicit. They were explicit for Cardinal Richard Cushing and the liberal Jesuit theologians in Boston.
Then there second big break came when the Holy Office 1949 also assumed that these cases were explicit. They were explicit for Cardinal Richard Cushing and the liberal Jesuit theologians in Boston.
So the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 stated ' that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member'.This is the mistake repeated in Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium 14) and then the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Even Dominus Iesus, Redemptoris Missio and two theological papers of the International Theological Commission, Vatican, repeat this error.They do it with the New Theology.These documents are not Feeneyite( there are no known exceptions) but Cushingite ( there are known exceptions to EENS).
Even apologists Fr.William Most and Monsgr.Clifford Fenton affirmed the New Theology.There would be ordinary and extradordinary salvation for them.Fr.William Most in the EWTN/ Jeff Mirus on line report, Tragic Errors of Fr. Leonard Feeney 1 assumes the Native Americans were saved before the missionaries went there.This is the conclusion of the New Theology.This theology infers that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire refers to concrete and known cases. Then it is conclud that they are exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.
How can there be a known extraordinary means of salvation for the SSPX? For Bishop Bernard Fellay, Fr. Pierpaolo Petruzzi, Fr. Jean Marie Gleize, Fr. Francois Laisney and other SSPX priests UR 3, NA 2, LG 16, LG 8 etc refer to the extraordinary means of salvation.In other words extraordinary but known.So this makes Vatican Council II a rupture with the dogma EENS as interpreted by the 16th century missionaries.
With the SSPX and the sedevacantists using the New Theology the fault is not only there in the Catechism and Vatican Council II.
There is only the ordinary means of salvation according to Scripture( John 3:6, Mark 16:16) and Tradition ( Council of Florence etc).When liberals suggest Scripture indicates that someone could be saved outside the visible limits of the Church, they are only trying to adapt to the New Theology.
-Lionel Andrades
1.
Tragic Errors of Fr.Leonard Feeney by Fr.William Most is based on assuming hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS. This is an objective mistake
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/tragic-errors-of-frleonard-feeney-by_1.html
Tragic Errors of Fr.Leonard Feeney by Fr.William Most
https://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.TXT
________________________________________________
April 11, 2016
Tragic Errors of Fr.Leonard Feeney by Fr.William Most
https://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.TXT
________________________________________________
April 11, 2016
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment