Heresy: In a Sept. 5th letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires, Pope Francis clearly expresses support for allowing remarried divorcees to receive Holy Communion despite the fact that they continue living in fornication. Francis adds that such … [More]
Heresy: In a Sept. 5th letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires, Pope Francis clearly expresses support for allowing remarried divorcees to receive Holy Communion despite the fact that they continue living in fornication. Francis adds that such sacrilegious communions will – quote – “do much good.” In reality, in countries like Germany or Switzerland where such practices have been followed for decades, it has led to a total break-down of Catholic marriage.
Pope Benedict approved an objective error of the International Theological Commission(ITC) and Archbishop Guido Pozzo and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J were collaboraters.They now expect Catholics all over the world to accept this error and interpret Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents using an irrational premise which results in a non traditional and heretical conclusion.Catholics must assume according to them,that what is invisible is really visible and what is hypothetical is really objective.
This makes the new theology and new doctrines of the Catholic Church politically correct with the Left.
Catholics should point out this error to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Vatican and object to it.Since after so many years of being informed, the cardinals and bishops, do not admit that they made a mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Archbishop Guido Pozzo talks about doctrine with reference to the SSPX but does not mention the error of Pope Benedict and the International Theological Commission in which he collaborated.-Lionel Andrades
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
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
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.
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.
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 Feeney1 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.
The New Theology of the Catechism is defended by the SSPX and the sedevacantists.So they refer to an ordinary and extraordinary means of salvation, when before the Council of Trent there was only an ordinary means of salvation.Every one needed to be a member of the Church to go to Heaven.Cardinal Ratzinger used the term 'the ordinary means of salvation' in Redemptoris Missio( 55).It was one of his early magisterial documents.
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.
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
The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) concept of ordinary and extraordinary means of salvation is based on the New Theology.It is Cushingite.It supports the Rahnerian 'anonymous Christian' theory.It is the new theology used by Pope Benedict/Cardinal Ratzinger in magisterial documents like Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus.Unfortunately Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre also accepted it.
There is a report on Gloria TV, in Italian, written under the pseudonym Isole de Patmos.This anonymous writer also recognises this theological problem, an objective error, among the 'Lefebvrists'.
I have often pointed it out.
Fr.Jean Marie Gleize in his book Vaticano II- Un Dibattito Aperto(Editrice Ichthys) 2013 refers to the extraordinary means of salvation.How can there be an extraordinary means of salvation with reference to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? Only if there were known exceptions could there be an extraordinary means of salvation.If invisible cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church were known, then there would be an extra ordinary means of salvation for us.Then only there could be exceptions to the ordinary means of salvation.
The ordinary and extra ordinary means of salvation, like Rahners Anonymous Christian theory comes from the error of the New Theology.It is the mixing up of what is subjective and theoretical as being objective and personally known.This is an error in philosophy which is now accepted as being Catholic doctrine, as being part of the Deposit of the Faith.It was never corrected by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger when he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Dcotrine of the Faith.
The writer Isole di Patmos has discerned the error too.Here is a translation of some of the passages from his article in Italian.
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 the inability to distinguish substance from accidents according to the metaphysics, and 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, and 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 Cassandra Crossing crumbling bridge, 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 this 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. Afferming 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; despite not having anything to do with flights of fancy rahneriani on "anonymous Christianity."
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. From Isola Patmos, November 7, 2014