Friday, March 25, 2016

There being known salvation is central to the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology

At first glance, the meaning of this dogma seems clear. However, Father Feeney was condemned by the Holy Office in 1949 for taking an extremist position on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Lionel: He refused to say there was known salvation outside the Church.
 He ignored, rejected, or distorted subsequent teaching on invincible ignorance and how baptism of desire can, in some providential way, join people to the Church (see my other recent comments for more details).
Lionel: He refused to that invincible ignorance  or baptism of desire referred to known cases. He could not say invisible cases were visible.This is common sense.
 It's worth recalling that the Council of Florence was an attempt to heal a schism, so it emphasized the danger of not submitting to Rome: even martyrdom would not suffice to save someone who, "knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it" (Lumen Gentium 14). The Council of Florence took place before the discovery of the Americas, and was not primarily concerned with those who had never heard the Gospel.
Lionel: At the time of the Council of Florence they obviously knew there were no known exceptions to the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.The dogma had already been defined by two Church Councils.
There being known salvation is central to the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology.
As St. Pius X taught, we must not abandon the sense of the dogma in Cantate Domino. But the dogma can be said to have evolved with Bl. Pius IX's Quanto Conficiamur Moerore and Pius XII's Mystici Corporis Christi, because, without abandoning the original sense (since being joined to the Church is still required for salvation), it expanded our understanding of how one can be joined to the church.
Lionel: Quanto Conficiamur Moerore and Mystici Corporis does not state that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.A reader has to assume that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refers to explicit cases, personally known cases. Then he has to infer that these 'explicit' cases are relevant and exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

 As the Catechism of St. Pius X says (article 9, question 29):
Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can; such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation

Lionel: He is referring to a speculative case. If in the mind of Pius X this is an explicit case, then it would mean the pope made an objective error. He has confused what is invisible as being visible.
This confusion is central to the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology.It is based on this irrationality that Pope Benedict says there is a development of doctrine.For him LG 16 would refer to an explicit case.So only then would Vatican Council II contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the Council of Florence.

This is the sort of legitimate development or evolution of dogma that fits the description in Dei Verbum 8:

"This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth."
I think this is what Benedict means when he speaks of an evolution of dogma.
Lionel: For Pope Benedict there has been a development to the extent that the dogma does not exist any more.If there are known exceptions, then it means the dogmatic teaching does not apply any more. They made a mistake over the centuries.There is no infallibility of the pope ex cathedra.
-Lionel Andrades

He does not realize that if he did not accept the reasoning of the Letter , he could accept Vatican Council II as being in harmony with the strict interpretation of EENS

Christopher A. Ferrara

Benedict Breaks His Silence... with another Leaky Lifeboat  

Written by  

Still searching for his hermeneutic-- pray for Pope Benedict

Baptism is necessary for salvation, but from early centuries the Church has recognized as among her members catechumens who were martyred before receiving baptism by water (baptism of blood).
Lionel: 'The Church'  happens to be liberal theologians who  have interpreted the baptism of desire, among the saints for example, as referring to personally known and specific cases, people visible on earth.How could there be someone known on earth who had been saved with the baptism of desire or blood, with or without the baptism of water? 
 The Council of Trent also states (6th session, Chapter 4) that justification is "a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire" (baptism of desire).
Lionel: The 'or its desire' refers to a speculative case and it is not physically visible like the baptism of water ( laver of regeneration). No one on earth could have known of someone saved in the 'or its desire' category.
In the new theology, liberal theologians assumed 'or its desire' refers to a person saved without the baptism of water.So they placed 'the desirethereof'( Council of Trent) in the baptism of water section of the Baltimore Catechism. No one in Baltimore knew of someone saved without the baptism of water. This is now considered traditional by the liberals.
In his 18th century Moral Theology, St Alphonsus wrote: "baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water." 
Lionel: Yes he confirms the point I am trying to make. He does not say that these are known cases. He is speculating.In good will he makes this statement.St.Alphonsus Liguori held the strict interpretation of the dogma EENs.
I too accept the desire of, but as being a hypothetical case. For me the baptism of desire would always be followed by the baptism of water, since this is the dogmatic teaching.
(You can read more on baptism of desire at http://www.catholicessentials.... -- though I don't know the website, the authors it quotes from look good.)
Lionel: He is a sedevacantist who uses the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology to interpret Vatican Council II and also the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.He then rejects Vatican Council II and accepts the Letter which assumes hypothetical cases are exceptions to EENS.
He does not realize that if he did not accept the reasoning of the Letter, he could accept Vatican Council II as being in harmony with the strict interpretation of EENS. LG 16 would refer to an invisible and not an visible case.May be this year, he' ll understand it.Let's hope so.
It's worth noting that Benedict says "If it is true that the great missionaries of the sixteenth century were still convinced that those who are not baptized are forever lost..." In other words, Francis Xavier might have believed that those in foreign lands could perhaps be saved through an implicit baptism of desire, but he was impelled to preach the gospel anyways, since an implicit baptism of desire without the help of the Church is highly uncertain.
Lionel: If someone was saved with an implicit desire it would not have been known to St. Francis or the human beings of his time. So it would not be relevant to St.Francis Xavier's understanding of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which Pope Benedict has contradicted.-Lionel Andrades

Can someone who does not exist be an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? Not for me!


Comments from The Catholic World Report.

 Catholic World Report
Since you've brought the Catechism in as a reliable source of Catholic doctrine (which I assumed you wouldn't since it explicitly contradicts your position), I'll quote the last line of the same paragraph you quoted, #1257, which reads "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments."
In March 2016 we do not know any one saved outside the Church because God is not bound by his Sacraments.So this is a reference to an invisible case for you and me.Can someone who does not exist be an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) ? 
Not for me!
Further, the rest of that section, ##1257-1261 explains more about what that means, including, "The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ." (#1258)
 Once again this is a hypothetical subject. It is not someone we can personally know in March 2016. So it is irrelevant to EENS.
Why is it mentioned in the Catechism' This is another issue. For Cardinal Ratzinger and the New Theology, there are known visible exceptions to EENS, there is salvation outside the Church.
Not for me.I am not denying the hypothetical case, I any denying that this hypothetical case is objective and so relevant to EENS.
Further, "For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament." (#1259)
 Once again this is a reference to a hypothetical case. There is no one you and me me know who is saved as such. So I will not postulate a hypothetical case as being explicit in 2016.
Hence, the act of Baptism is not limited to the Rite of Baptism insofar as God is concerned;
We do not know of any exceptions.If God knows of any exception it is not an exception for us human beings. We know that every one needs to formally convert into the Church, since this is the teaching of the Holy Spirit.
however, insofar as man is concerned, the Rite of Baptism (baptism by water) is the only sure way to salvation. All other options still leave a question, hence the medieval notion of the Limbo of Infants.
More to the point, especially as regards the unevangelized, CCC #1260 specifically states the opposite of what you are arguing: "'Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.'
Yes the possibility exists as long as a person is alive.
Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.' Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity." (emphasis mine)
 Yes he can be saved one can hope optimistically. One can speculater. However this is not a case of someone personally known. So it is not a known exception to the dogma EENS. It is not relevant to EENs. We do not know the name and surname of someone who has been saved as such.There is not such case in 2016.
The Catechism goes on to emphasize the need for baptism by water (and the Spirit) as the only sure way to salvation by applying this principle to unbaptized infants who die (which also applies to those who cannot be baptized, the children who die in the womb), saying that we commend them to God's mercy.
Yes we can commend them to God's mercy since the need for the baptism of water is the only sure way to salvation.
If we can do that for the infant, even one born to a
Catholic family, why can we not do it for an adult who is just as uninformed about the necessity of salvation by baptism, regardless of their heathen faith?
Lionel :
Yes we can commend them to God's mercy, we can pray for them.
However, a Muslim who has heard the Gospel and remained obstinate in his position that Jesus is not the Son of God surely condemns himself to damnation; of that there is no question.
Are you saying this based on LG 14 ? Since LG 14 is based on the reasoning in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The Letter assumed that being saved in invincible ignorance referred to a known case of a person saved outside the Church, saved without the baptism of water.So LG 14 says every one who knows, who is not in invincible ignorance, needs to convert into the Church.
So with this error they rejected the traditional teaching which says every one with no exception needs to convert into the Church.
The question of one who has never encountered the Gospel, never been given the chance to accept Jesus' baptism, remains unsure, since we know that God still desires his salvation and that God can (not does) act outside of the sacraments established for man to use of his own accord.
 The norm for salvation is the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. The norma is not God acting outside the Sacraments.
If there is someone who has never encountered the Gospel and is saved, it could mean God had sent a preacher to him. This was how St. Thomas Aquinas explained it.
For St.Thomas Aquinas and Vatican Council II ( AG 7- all need faith and baptism) the norm is the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
-Lionel Andrades

The new theology is based upon there being salvation outside the Church. This is irrational.


Vatican II brought in the new theology. Truthfully, I don't understand what you are saying. You are not clear, or I am just not smart enough to understand.


You have to understand one basic thing: there is no salvation outside the Church.There is no KNOWN salvation outside the Church. No one in the present or past could have seen, known or met someone saved outside the Church. Since IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR ANY ONE to have seen someone in Heaven without the baptism of water.Neither could any human being know someone on earth who would be saved without the baptism of water.
The new theology is based upon there being salvation outside the Church. This is irrational.
Once you have identified this irrationality and avoid it, you can look at VC2 with a different perspective.It kind of changes before your eyes.
Try it.
Look at LG 16. It refers to someone saved in invincible ignorance and with a good concience.
Is this a reference to known salvation for you in March 2016? Do you know any one saved as such?
So does LG 16 refer to a visible or invisible cases for you?
For most Catholics it refers to a visible case but not for me.
Let me know what you think.


Immagine di copertina

You can from now on interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational inference and the Council will be in harmony with traditional EENS. Try it and confirm it. Then let me know.