Thursday, September 15, 2016

Fuori dalla Chiesa Visibile non c'e salvezza? I mezzi ordinari ed i mezzi straordinari di salvezza - Dall’Isola di Patmos

Canale Isola di Patmos




FUORI DALLA CHIESA VISIBILE NON C’E’ SALVEZZA? I MEZZI ORDINARI ED I MEZZI STRAORDINARI DI SALVEZZA…

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, o salus extra ecclesiam non est, è un monito rivolto a noi, un invito a non abbandonare mai la via, la verità e la vita. Un monito coerentemente, dogmaticamente e dottrinalmente legato ai mezzi ordinari di salvezza. A … [Espandi]

Nel mondo di quella che viene impropriamente definita Tradizione, dove primeggiano i fans dei lefebvriani con tutte le loro confusioni connesse talora all’incapacità di distinguere le sostanze dagli accidenti secondo la migliore metafisica, aleggia anche una mancata percezione teologica legata a quelli che sono i mezzi ordinaried i mezzi straordinari dell’azione di grazia di Dio in rapporto al mistero della salvezza e della redenzione, per non parlare del concetto di Chiesa visibile e di Chiesa invisibile.
Anche in questo i modernisti per un verso ed i fans dei lefebvriani per l’altro, procedono su due binari opposti, ma paralleli, ed entrambi fanno marciare lo stesso treno con tutti i suoi ignari passeggeri verso il ponte pericolante di ed i fans dei lefebvriani per l’altro, procedono su due binari opposti, ma paralleli, ed entrambi fanno marciare lo stesso treno con tutti i suoi ignari passeggeri verso il ponte pericolante di Cassandra Crossing, com’ebbi a scrivere nel mio primo articolo sull’Isola di Patmos
________________________

I modernisti hanno sviluppato in seno alla Chiesa varie metastasi che concorrono tutte al dramma della stessa neoplasia. Mezzo secolo fa, si è partiti dalla teoria ardita di Karl Rahner sui “cristiani anonimi”; e dico ardita perché il linguaggio espressivo di questo teologo gesuita tedesco, che per suo impianto strutturale è nebuloso e ambiguo, se colto e male interpretato come di prassi accade può portare ad una vanificazione dell’intero mistero della redenzione. La pericolosa teoria dei “cristiani anonimi” finisce così col divenire una delle basi portanti del relativismo teologico che sfocia per naturale conseguenza nel relativismo religioso: una religione vale l’altra, cristiana o non cristiana che sia. Affermare ciò in questo modo è sbagliato e pericoloso, mentre è corretto sotto tutti i profili della migliore dottrina parlare come faremo di seguito dei mezzi ordinari e dei mezzi straordinari di salvezza.



_________________________ 

Oltre ai mezzi ordinari di salvezza offerti in uso alla Chiesa per servire Cristo e per portare a compimento i suoi piani di salvezza, esistono da sempre mezzi straordinari
che sono per loro natura stessa imperscrutabili, perché dimorano nel cuore di Dio e da Dio procedono; pur non avendo niente a che fare coi voli pindarici rahneriani sul “cristianesimo anonimo”.



_________________________
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, salus extra Ecclesiam non est, è un monito rivolto a noi, un invito a non abbandonare mai la via, la verità e la vita. È un monito coerentemente, dogmaticamente e dottrinalmente legato ai mezzi ordinari di salvezza
Dall’Isola di Patmos, 7 novembre 2014  
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4007409004435288027#editor/target=post;postID=3978896440664641215


OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS VISIBLE SALVATION? THE ORDINARY AND EXTRAORDINARY MEANS OF SALVATION ...
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, or salus extra ecclesiam non est, is a warning to us, an invitation to never abandon the way, the truth and the life. A warning line, dogmatically and doctrinally linked to the ordinary means of salvation. 
Also in this  world, in what is improperly called Tradition, where the fans of the Lefebvrists stand out, with all their related confusion.Sometimes it is with the inability to distinguish  substance from accidents according to good metaphysics.There is a a failure to theologically perceive the link between the ordinary and extraordinary means of salvation and the action of God's grace in relation to the mystery of salvation and redemption, in the  
concept of visible church and the invisible church.
Again the modernists on the one hand and the fans of Lefebvre,both proceed on two binary opposites, but parallel ways. They both take the same train.They go with all the passengers oblivious to the crumbling bridge. They march with the unsuspecting passengers towards the crumbling bridge at the Cassandra Crossing, as I wrote in my first  article on the Isle of Patmos.
________________________

 
The modernists have developed in the Church, various metastases which all contribute to the drama of the same tumor. Half a century ago, it started with the daring theory of Karl Rahner's "anonymous Christians"; and I say bold because the expressive language of the German Jesuit theologian.Its structural system is nebulous and ambiguous, if understood it is misinterpreted - as happens in standard practice.It may lead to nullifying the entire mystery of redemption. The dangerous theory of "anonymous Christians" thus ends up becoming one of the main bases of theological relativism. It emerges as a natural consequence of  religious relativism: one religion is the same as the other, Christian or non-Christian. Affirming in this way what is wrong and dangerous, but is considered  correct in all aspects of good doctrine -that we can follow-  that is the ordinary and extraordinary means of salvation.
_________________________

 
In addition to the ordinary means of salvation offered by the  Church to serve Christ and to fulfill his plans of salvation, there are always extraordinary means that  by their very nature are inscrutable. Since they dwell in the heart of God and proceed from God, not having anything to do with Rahnerian flights of fancy on the "anonymous Christian."
_________________________

 
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, or salus extra ecclesiam non est, is a warning to us, an invitation to never abandon the way, the truth and the life. It is a warning line, dogmatically and doctrinally linked to the ordinary means of salvation.(Emphasis mine)
 From Isola Patmos, November 7, 2014

Ann Barnhardt with a false premise and conclusion misinterprets the Catholic Faith

nosubmission
Ann Barnhardt refers to the true premise  four times in her last blog post.1

Again, back to the whole true premise/false premise thing...

Again, we’re back to the essential nature of the TRUE PREMISE...

Once again, all of this depends on operating from a TRUE PREMISE...

But the key to this is the private and public insistence upon operating from a true premise...

But see the false premise which she uses.

1.For her the saints referred to a visible baptism of desire and so there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).So she is not a Feeneyite because of this false premise.



2.The Letter of the Holy Office assumed that the baptism of desire was visible. This is the false premise that Ann Barnhardt accepts. So the result is that she does not support Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.




3.Since she uses the false premise Lumen Gentium 16 would be a rupture with the dogma EENS. Vatican Council II would be non traditional and would contradict EENS.So with the false premise there is a non traditional conclusion. She does not know of any alternative.Since she is not a Feeneyite.
 
 
 
 
 


4.We cannot physically see a baptism of desire case in 2016. However she can.This is her premise. So she is not a Feeneyite.Her position is irrational and non traditional.She is really opposing the old ecclesiology of the Traditional Latin Mass which was based on Feeneyite EENS.








FOR ME
For me all Muslims and other non Catholics would need 'faith and baptism' (AG 7, LG 14) to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. Since there are no visible exceptions in 2016.Neither could there have been any known exceptions to the dogma EENS, over the centuries. Since human beings cannot see people in Heaven or on earth saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.We cannot say that any particular person would be going to Heaven who is visibly outside the Catholic Church.
 
VATICAN COUNCIL II IS TRADITIONAL FOR A FEENEYITE
So as a Feeneyite Vatican Council II is traditional and does not contradict the dogma EENS, as it was interpreted by the 16th century missionaries.There cannot be any exceptions to EENS, in Vatican Council II  for me.
 
LIBERAL CUSHINGITE ANN
For Ann this is not the case.She is a Cushingite. She interprets magisterial documents with an irrational premise and conclusion as do the liberals.So there are known exceptions in 2016 to all non Catholics needing to formally convert into the Catholic Church to avoid the fires of Hell.She is a modernist on this point and is in agreement with the new theology of the two popes.
 
ALL
She cannot say that according to the Catholic Faith ( Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14), Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Dominus Iesus 20, the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257, 845,846 etc, the Athanasius Creed, the Nicene Creed's 'I believe in one (known) baptism for the forgiveness of sins' etc) all Muslims ( Hindus, Buddhists,Jews,Protestants and Orthodox Christians)  are on the way to Hell in 2016 unless they convert into the Catholic Church before death.
 
NATIVE AMERICANS
Instead she says she believes all the Native Americans who did not know the Catholic Faith, who were born before the missionaries went there, are saved.This is Cushingism. For her being in invincible ignorance refers to a known case, and a known exception to the dogma EENS. Then she irrationally reasons out that she can know in general that all the Native Americans were in ignorance and were saved since no one preached to them.Her premise and conclusion are wrong.
The dogma EENS refers to all needing 'faith and baptism' for salvation. All.Her premise is that there are visible exceptions of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance. So all do not need to enter the Church but only those who know.She has picked up the mistake of Lumen Gentium 14 from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
-Lionel Andrades




http://www.barnhardt.biz/2016/09/12/on-the-current-antipapacy-the-sspx-and-other-totally-non-inflammatory-topics/

Pope Benedict approved the mistake of the International Theological Commission, a magisterial error on a faith issue which contradicted the ex cathedra teaching of three Church Councils and popes

Image result for Photo of Pope Benedict XVI with International Theological Commission
Pope Benedict approved the International Theological Commission objective error.The magisterium made a mistake on a faith issue. They did it with the mix up of what is invisible and visible.By confusing what is invisible as being visible a defined dogma, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which Pius XII called an 'infallible teaching', was set aside.It was no more part of 'the deposit of the faith'.
Pope Benedict assumed that the invisible cases of the baptism of desire etc were visible. So for him Pope Piux XII was correct and Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong.There were visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus for Pope Pius XII.This was not accepted by Fr. Leonard Feeney.
So for Pope Benedict when the saints referred to the baptism of desire the reference was to an invisible case, someone seen ( instead of not seen) in the present times.Like the liberal theologians he re-interprets the saints and popes on the baptism of desire.Like the sedevacantist Fr. Anthony Cekada he reads a reference to the baptism of desire by a saint.He then infers that the saint is referring to a visible case. He then concludes like the Holy Office in 1949 that the baptism of desire is relevant and an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED
The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without  being baptized', International Theological Commission, 2007
 
59. The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) offers further specifications. “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens.

When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”. - The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without  being baptized', International Theological Commission, 2007
 
'it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church.'
Why is it not necessary?
Since there are exceptions for the popes.

* PRELIMINARY NOTE: The theme “The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized” was placed under the study of the International Theological Commission... The Committee also received the collaboration of Rev. Luis Ladaria, SJ, the Secretary General of the International Theological Commission, and Msgr. Guido Pozzo, the Assistant to the ITC, as well as other members of the Commission.The general discussion on the theme took place during the plenary sessions of the ITC, held in Rome. In October 2005 and October 2006. This present text was approved in forma specifica by the members of the Commission, and was subsequently submitted to its President, Cardinal William Levada who, upon receiving the approval of the Holy father in an audience granted on January 19, 2007, approved the text for publication.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 
So for Pope Benedict, Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.j and Archbishop Guido Pozzo the baptism of desire is physically seen.Otherwise how could it be an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
 
 
 
 
The International Theological Commission would assume that St. Thomas Aquinas referred to the man in the forest,in invincible ignorance, as being visible, concrete and known. So the ITC inferred that this was  an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Pope Benedict approved this wrong inference.So the Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions being saved in invincible ignorance.It is relevant for Pope Benedict. He also did not object to its inclusion in Vatican Council II ( LG 16) at which he was present.An invisible man in the forest saved in ignorance is considered known.This is an irrational premise. It is is then concluded that this 'visible' case is an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. An irrational and non traditional conclusion is drawn. Here we have Pope Benedict's hermeneutic of rupture being made by Pope Benedict himself.
 
 
 
 
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were speculative and theoretical.The Letter assumes they are explicit and knowable in personal cases.This was an objective mistake not noted by Pope Benedict XVI.
 
 
 
 
 
We cannot see a baptism of desire case yet the New Theology of Pope Benedict XVi is based on us being able to physically see a baptism of desire case.
Then with this new theology LG 16 and LG 14 are assumed to refer to explicit cases in the present times and so Vatican Council II becomes a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Tradition.
-Lionel Andrades


International Theological Commission, Vol I

September 14, 2016

International Theological Commission made a mistake

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/international-theological-commission.html