The One True Faith Revisited: There’s Only One True Church
Doctrine has changed however on the salvation issue and Christine Niles and Church Militant TV do not contest it theologically. They are accepting ecclesiastical authority.
Anytime you reject the magisterium of the Church, on moral issues, it is atheism she says.However during the pontificate of Pope Francis this is being contested by Cardinal Raymond Burke and recently 65-plus scholars.They are questioning the magisterium on Amoris Laetitia.
___________________________________________
Christine Niles and Michael Voris do not accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) quoted here.Since for them invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible exceptions to the dogma EENS.They use the irrational premise to interpret EENS.
There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved. (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.†( Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.†(Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) http://catholicism.org/category/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation
________________________________
She and Michael Voris assume hypothetical references in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 are non hypothetical and so are examples of objective cases, known people saved outside the Church.So these documents become a rupture with Tradition because of the use of the false premise.If they did not use the false premise there would not be a rupture with traditional EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.
EXAMPLES OF THE HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE CATECHISM WHICH FOR CMTV ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.
1. 'God is not limited to the Sacraments'(CCC 1257).
'2.all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body'(CC(CCC 846).
3. Those 'justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians'(CCC 818).
4. They are 'joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."(CCC 838).
5. 'the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims'(CCC 841).
__________________________________
EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II WHICH FOR CMTV ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.
1. 'elements of sanctification and truth'in other religions(LG 8).
2..'good and holy' things in other religions(NA 2).
3..'a ray of that Truth which enlightens' all men(NA 2).
4.'imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3).
5.' people of good will in other religions'(GS 22).
6.' seeds of the Word'(AG 11).
7.'invincible ignorance'(LG 16).
8.'a good conscience'(LG 16) etc.
______________________________________
HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON WHICH FOR CMTV ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL AND SO ARE EXCEPTIONS TO EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS.
1.Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.(we do not know who this person is in particular so it is a hypothetical case.)
2.In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.(we do not know any one in particular as such so this is a hypothetical case).
3.Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.( if there is any such person he or she would only be known to God. So this passage is irrelevant to the dogma EENS. It cannot be an exception.Since it is a reference to an invisible person for us.)
4.However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.(it is a reference to an unknown catechumen)
5.For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.( and we do not know any in particular.So this is a theoretical and hypothetical reference).
___________________________________
TERMS EXPLAINED
Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reasoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.It affirms traditional EENS like the missionaries and magisterium of the 16th century.
Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS.There are exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church for salvation.It wronly assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.So it uses the false premise to reject the traditional interpretation of EENS.
Irrational premise: It is assuming hypothetical cases are not hypothetical but instead are objective cases in the present times.It assumes invisible and unknown people are visible and unknown in our reality.
Baptism of Desire ( premise-free): It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it, the baptism of desire, is not relevant to the dogma EENS.
Baptism of Desire (with the false premise): It refers to the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved.A known person is assumed to be known.
Invincible Ignorance ( premise-free): This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is a hypothetical case it is not an exception to the dogma EENS.The false premise was not used.
Invincible Ignorance (with the false premise): This refers to the explicit case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is an exception to the dogma EENS it is assumed to be objectively known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational.
Council of Florence: One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exception.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was premise-free.
Liberal theologians: They re-interpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.They used the false premise.
Vatican Council II (with the premise): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.
Vatican Council II ( premise-free):It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( premise-free),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston:(with the false premise): It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.It used the false premise.
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( premise-free): It means interpreting the first part of the the Letter without the false premise.Only the first part.It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.However the second part of the Letter contradicts the first part since it uses the false premise.
Letter of the Holy Office ( with the false premise): The second part of the Letter rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( with the premise) and being saved in invincible ignorance ( with the premise) as being exceptions to EENS (premise-free). In other words they are mistaken for being visible and known cases when they really are invisible for us.It wrongly assumes hypothetical cases are objectively visible and so they are exceptions to the first part of the Letter.
Baltimore Catechism: It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with the confusion.It can be interpreted premise-free.
Catechism of Pope X: It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.It can be interpreted as being premise -free. The references to invincible ignorance etc have to be interpreted without the false premise. So it does not contradict the dogma EENS( premise-free).
Nicene Creed ( with the premise): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means there are more than three known baptisms when the false premise is used in the interpretation. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc.This is an irrational but common understanding.
Nicene Creed ( premise-free): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.
New Theology (with the premise) : It refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.It is of course based on the false premise.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( with the false premise): It refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto convert into the Church in the present times, since there are exceptions.The baptism of desire( with the premise), baptism of blood( with the premise) and being saved in invincible ignorance( with the premise) are exceptions to dogma as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( premise-free): It refers to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.Invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not visible exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Catholic Church for salvation.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( with the premise): CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction. Also CCC 848 is based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS( premise-free). So this is an interpretation of the Catechism with the false premise.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( premise-free): CCC 1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known cases in the present times of God not being not limited to the Sacraments(CCC1257).When CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needing to formally enter the Church.It is a reference to a hypothetical case and not somebody known. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation.
Conclusion:
Christine Niles and Michael Voris interpret Church documents with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism.
They use the Irrational Premise.
They choose the Baptism of Desire (with the false premise) and Invincible Ignorance (with the false premise).
They irrationally also choose Vatican Council II (with the premise).
It is the same with the Letter of the Holy Office ( with the false premise) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( with the premise).
In first class heresy according to the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II they choose the Nicene Creed ( with the premise).
For them it has always been Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( with the false premise) and not according to the missionaries in the 16th century,with their traditional version which was free of the irrational premise.
With the irrational premise they interpret the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of Pope Pius X as a rupture with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( premise-free).
They do not affirm the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of the Catholic Church(premise-free). For then it would be in harmony with Vatican Council II(premise-free). It would also be in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus (premise-free).We would be back to the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.There would be no change in the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II.
Their New Theology is based on the irrational premise.Without the irrational premise there is no new theology.
They can choose extra ecclesiam nulla salus premise-free but will not do so.We would then know where Martin Luther really has gone. They can also choose to interpret Vatican Council II( premise-free) which will not be a rupture with EENS( premise-free) but they will not do so.
All this is not the work of the Holy Spirit.The Holy Spirit cannot teach irrationality. The Holy Spirit will not violate the Principle of Non Contradiction and reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and change the meaning of the Nicene Creed with an irrational premise.
They are of course only following ecclesiastical authority in Detroit. All this above could also be said about the Archbishop of Detroit, Pope Francis and the faculty at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit.- Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment