There is no comment from the offices of Ecclesia Dei or the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.I have e-mailed them the report. I don't expect to reply.
This is a political issue. They are supporting an error since it is expected of them by the political Left.
Conservative and traditionalist bloggers are watching as from a distance.They are waiting for someone who knows theology to intervene.This is also the position of Catholic journalists. This is a major story in the Catholic Church.
The Vatican's insistence on the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) accepting Vatican Council II is now meaningless.Vatican Council II without Cardinal Ratzinger's error has the ecclesiocentrism of the past.
POPES HAVE TO ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL II
POPES HAVE TO ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL II
It is the Vatican, the two popes and the cardinals, who have to accept Vatican Council II in line with extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as interpreted by the 16th century missionaries.
They also need to clarify that in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case, it was the Holy Office in the 1949 Letter to the Archbishop of Boston, which made the objective mistake.
Cardinal Ratzinger has repeated it.It is a new doctrine and the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith overlooked it.
BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS ALWAYS INVISIBLE
BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS ALWAYS INVISIBLE
Note - the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance is not the issue but when it is projected as an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS, then it becomes an issue. Since then it is implied that the baptism of desire etc are objective and are known cases for them to be exceptions to EENS.This is irrational.Since the baptism of desire is always invisible.People saved in Heaven without the baptism of water and Catholic faith are always invisible and unknown on earth. They would only be known to God.
If there is a saint or martyr who is in Heaven with the baptism of desire we would not know about it on earth.
ANOTHER PRIEST
ANOTHER PRIEST
Another priest has just sent me a message.He finds what I write hard to accept.
Fr.X:
1. First of all, you are fighting the wrong battle, just as the Quixote…
Lionel: I am affirming my Catholic faith. I am also supporting my views with citations from magisteriual documents ( Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14), Cantate Domino Council of Florence 1441 etc).For me the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refers to hypothetical cases.So I do not have to reject it.Neither do I have to assume that they refer to visible cases and so contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction, as does Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
____________________________
Fr.X :2. Second, you are wrong when attribute the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. The Encyclical is signed by Pope Saint John Paul II.
Lionel:It was approved by Cardinal Ratzinger and also believed to be written by him. Also other magisterial documents, during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II have the same philosophy and theology.These were issued when the pope was ailing.
__________________________
Fr.X
3. Third, what is the supposed error in RM 17? It seems you didn’t understand what is said there. Just in RM 17 there are presented the wrong visions, whereas in RM 18 there are the right vision! So, again the error is only yours!
Lionel:I don't know what right and wrong visions are being referred to here.
Fr.X:
The text says this: “Furthermore, the kingdom, as they [not the Catholic Church!] understand it, ends up either leaving very little room for the Church or undervaluing the Church in reaction to a presumed "ecclesiocentrism" of the past, and because they consider the Church herself only a sign, for that matter a sign not without ambiguity.” Please, read well the text before your wrong critics!
Lionel:An ecclesiocentrism of the past!.So there is an ecclesiocentrism of the past which is different form the ecclesiology of the present.I agree!
In one of the papers of the International Theological Commission approved by Cardinal Ratzinger there is the reference to an 'exclusivist ecclesiocentrism' of the past, in particular, that of Fr. Leonard Feeney. This was rejected by the ITC and Cardinal Ratzinger.
So this is my point.The ecclesiocentrism of the past has been rejected and there is now a new ecclesiology based on there being known exceptions to the old eccclesiocentrism.
This is possible only with the false premise.Since only with the false premise is Vatican Council II a rupture with the old ecclesiocentrism. Without the Cardinal Ratzinger error, his irrational premise, Vatican Council II supports the old ecclesiology of the Church based on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So he had a choice in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and he chose the irrational one. I choose the rational one. For me LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc refer to invisible cases. So my conclusion will be rational and traditional.
______________________________
4. The question about visible/non visible cases of saved persons is non-sense question. This is not the case, and you didn’t find any official text in which this absurd question is mentioned. So let put it away of this discussion.
Lionel:This is at the centre of the error. When it is assumed for example, that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma EENS( Letter of the Holy Office 1949) it is presumed that the baptism of desire is visible for it to be an exception. So the visible-invisible distinction is already being made by the present magisterium. The distinction has been made by Cardinal Ratzinger when he rejects the old ecclessiology.
_________________________________
5. Your lecture and interpretation of EENS, that is, the Feeneyite interpretation, is wrong, just heterodox at all. So is absurd you use it to criticize just at least the last three Popes with this false premise!
Lionel:The Feeneyite interpretation of EENS for me says there are no known cases of the baptism of desire etc in 2016.So the baptism of desire is not relevant to EENS for me.
So the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS for me , is the same as the interpretation of EENS according to the 16th centruy missionaries. There was no 'development' of doctrine or dogma for them.
For you and Pope Benedict XVI ( interview with Avvenire) there is 'a development' of the dogma EENS in Vatican Council II.LG 16 ,LG 14, UR 3 etc are a rupture with Tradition, since there are visible cases of people saved outside the Church, who contradict the 16th century missionaries.
___________________________________
6. Finally, the problem of logic is just against you. Your logic doesn’t make sense. The false premises are just yours, the wrong conclusion again is just yours. I’m sorry…
Lionel: You have not cited 'my' false premise and conclusion. Please be specific.
I am saying your false premise and that of Cardinal Ratzinger is to assume there are known cases of the baptism of desire; visible cases of people saved without the baptism of water and Catholic faith.This results in a false conclusion which says that these cases are exceptions to the dogma EENS. This is all there in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.I am only pointing it out.I am not saying anything new.
If you avoid the premise and conclusion Vatican Council II changes. The interpretation changes. I have not added any thing new. Just by assuming LG 16 etc refer to invisible and not visible cases, the Council is no more a rupture with EENS and Tradition.This is not a new theology or something I have added.
I repeat : just by avoiding the false premise Vatican Council II is Feeneyite. It supports the ecclesiology of the Church Councils and Church Fathers on EENS.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment