"The one thing, the first thing, the only thing that matters for the Church is to save souls!"
Bishop Fellay in a recently released 45-minute frank interview on the status of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X under the pontificates of Benedict and Francis (in French with English subtitles), via Adfero at Rorate, March 21, 2016:
He also speaks of a “profound evolution of Dogma” with respect to the Dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. This purported change of dogma has led, in the pope's eyes, to a loss of the missionary zeal in the Church – “any motivation for a future missionary commitment was removed.”
Pope Benedict asks the piercing question that arose after this palpable change of attitude of the Church: “Why should you try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith when they can be saved even without it?”
To better appreciate the dynamic at work here read Avery Dulles' essay on "Who Can Be saved?" After carefully going through all of the ways salvation may be worked out, the reader is left with the unavoidable impression that there are so many alternatives it hardly matters. Hardly what Dulles probably intended, but there you go.
Since the Council we have two fundamentally opposing ideas of the nature of the Church. They are irreconcilable in terms of mission statements.
They can be reconciled if you are aware that the heremeneutic of rupture depends on assuming there is known salvation outside the Church.And no one could have known of salvation in Heaven without faith and baptism. This is physically not possible.This is an innovation in the Catholic Church after the Council of Trent and it became prominent in the Baltimore Catechism and then the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.It was an objective error. Since there are no known cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.The error was not detented.Instead Vatican Council II mentions being saved in invicible ignorance etc as if it is relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. How do we reconcile VC II with the dogma EENS? It is simple. We accept hypothetical cases as being hypothetical. LG 16 is a theoretical case. LG 8 also refers to a hypothetical case. Hypothetical cases cannot be explicit. They cannot be exceptions to EENS. So we are back to the old ecclesiology. VC II does not contradict the old ecclesiology and the interpretation of EENS according to the 16th century missionaries. It would be nice if someone could explain this to Pope Francis and Pope Benedict. May be Bishop Fellay could do it. He simply has not announce that there is no known salvation outside the Church.This is something ration. Common knowledge.Philosophically acceptable to any Catholic seminarian. He cannot see people in Heaven saved without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14). -Lionel
There being known salvation is central to the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/there-being-known-salvation-is-central.html
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 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/he-does-not-realize-that-if-he-did-not.html
Can someone who does not exist be an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? Not for me! http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/full-text-of-benedict-xvis-recent-rare.html
Card. Ratzinger interpreted Vatican Council II with an irrationality when a rational option was available .He then excommunicated Abp. Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops for not accepting this heretical version of the faith http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/card-ratzinger-interpreted-vatican.html
Does not the fact that 1962 came thirteen years after the Cushing letter indicate that the vibrating theological heads of the Great Council were already well convinced of "known salvation," whether or not it contradicted the long established doctrine of EENS? It is not rational to argue that V2 makes perfect -- and perfectly traditional -- sense, if only we do Lionel's "I Dream of Jeannie" head gazoink. It forces one to argue that the intent of the authors plays no role in interpreting what they wrote. In fact, EENS had to go if the agenda of the V2 theologians was to move forward with the business of "profoundly evolving" the Church to the requirements of the zeitgeist. In other words, if the Cushing letter had not existed, it would have been necessary for the V2 conspirators to invent it.
I agree with much of what Lionel says, and in any case do not intend to turn this thread into a cheap suit of back-and-forth argle-bargle.
The excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre by the CDF Prefect, like that of Fr.Leonard Feeney by the Holy Office (CDF) in 1949, was an injustice.There was no known salvation outside the Church http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/the-excommunication-of-archbishop.html
I would put "known salvation" in the same receptacle as Balthasar's "dare we hope . . . " That is, the trash bin reserved for perniciously "hypothetical" notions at odds with tradition and dogma but promoted by theological upstarts to spotlight their egotistical brilliance and push their zeitgeist-driven agendas.
I would put "known salvation" in the same receptacle as Balthasar's "dare we hope . . . " That is, the trash bin reserved for perniciously "hypothetical" notions at odds with tradition and dogma but promoted by theological upstarts to spotlight their egotistical brilliance and push their zeitgeist-driven agendas.
Known salvation simply means inferring that we can see or know people in the present times( for example 2016) who are in Heaven or on earth, saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.This fantasy inference is not made by me it is inferred by Pope Benedict and I am only pointing it out. The inference is made for example, when it is said that the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, refer to baptisms without the baptism of water( Wow! How would you know?!) and so there is salvation outside the Church(Yep! You've seen them in Heaven without 'faith and baptism'). For me there is no known salvation and so I follow the old ecclesiology based on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. -Lionel
"This fantasy inference is not made by me it is inferred by Pope Benedict and I am only pointing it out."
I am not saying that you said it, Lionel. Ratzinger and the other members of the V2brain trust promoted the "fantasy inference" in V2 as a necessary prologue to the progressive agenda they were pushing on the Church. We probably agree on that point.
I reject only your assertion that by accepting "hypothetical cases as being hypothetical" we somehow automagically purge V2 documents of the progressivist intentions of their authors. As was pointed out above, "if the Cushing letter had not existed, it would have been necessary for the V2 conspirators to invent it."
10 comments:
From the Benefits Interview coverage:
He also speaks of a “profound evolution of Dogma” with respect to the Dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. This purported change of dogma has led, in the pope's eyes, to a loss of the missionary zeal in the Church – “any motivation for a future missionary commitment was removed.”
Pope Benedict asks the piercing question that arose after this palpable change of attitude of the Church: “Why should you try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith when they can be saved even without it?”
To better appreciate the dynamic at work here read Avery Dulles' essay on "Who Can Be saved?" After carefully going through all of the ways salvation may be worked out, the reader is left with the unavoidable impression that there are so many alternatives it hardly matters. Hardly what Dulles probably intended, but there you go.
Since the Council we have two fundamentally opposing ideas of the nature of the Church. They are irreconcilable in terms of mission statements.
They can be reconciled if you are aware that the heremeneutic of rupture depends on assuming there is known salvation outside the Church.And no one could have known of salvation in Heaven without faith and baptism. This is physically not possible.This is an innovation in the Catholic Church after the Council of Trent and it became prominent in the Baltimore Catechism and then the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.It was an objective error. Since there are no known cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.The error was not detented.Instead Vatican Council II mentions being saved in invicible ignorance etc as if it is relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
How do we reconcile VC II with the dogma EENS?
It is simple. We accept hypothetical cases as being hypothetical. LG 16 is a theoretical case. LG 8 also refers to a hypothetical case. Hypothetical cases cannot be explicit. They cannot be exceptions to EENS. So we are back to the old ecclesiology. VC II does not contradict the old ecclesiology and the interpretation of EENS according to the 16th century missionaries.
It would be nice if someone could explain this to Pope Francis and Pope Benedict.
May be Bishop Fellay could do it. He simply has not announce that there is no known salvation outside the Church.This is something ration. Common knowledge.Philosophically acceptable to any Catholic seminarian. He cannot see people in Heaven saved without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14).
-Lionel
There being known salvation is central to the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/there-being-known-salvation-is-central.html
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
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/he-does-not-realize-that-if-he-did-not.html
Can someone who does not exist be an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? Not for me!
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/full-text-of-benedict-xvis-recent-rare.html
Pope Benedict must be asked to come back to the faith
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/pope-benedict-must-be-asked-to-come.html
MARCH 27, 2016
Card. Ratzinger interpreted Vatican Council II with an irrationality when a rational option was available .He then excommunicated Abp. Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops for not accepting this heretical version of the faith
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/card-ratzinger-interpreted-vatican.html
Thanks for providing this! God bless the Society!
Does not the fact that 1962 came thirteen years after the Cushing letter indicate that the vibrating theological heads of the Great Council were already well convinced of "known salvation," whether or not it contradicted the long established doctrine of EENS? It is not rational to argue that V2 makes perfect -- and perfectly traditional -- sense, if only we do Lionel's "I Dream of Jeannie" head gazoink. It forces one to argue that the intent of the authors plays no role in interpreting what they wrote. In fact, EENS had to go if the agenda of the V2 theologians was to move forward with the business of "profoundly evolving" the Church to the requirements of the zeitgeist. In other words, if the Cushing letter had not existed, it would have been necessary for the V2 conspirators to invent it.
I agree with much of what Lionel says, and in any case do not intend to turn this thread into a cheap suit of back-and-forth argle-bargle.
The excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre by the CDF Prefect, like that of Fr.Leonard Feeney by the Holy Office (CDF) in 1949, was an injustice.There was no known salvation outside the Church
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/the-excommunication-of-archbishop.html
I would put "known salvation" in the same receptacle as Balthasar's "dare we hope . . . " That is, the trash bin reserved for perniciously "hypothetical" notions at odds with tradition and dogma but promoted by theological upstarts to spotlight their egotistical brilliance and push their zeitgeist-driven agendas.
I would put "known salvation" in the same receptacle as Balthasar's "dare we hope . . . " That is, the trash bin reserved for perniciously "hypothetical" notions at odds with tradition and dogma but promoted by theological upstarts to spotlight their egotistical brilliance and push their zeitgeist-driven agendas.
Known salvation simply means inferring that we can see or know people in the present times( for example 2016) who are in Heaven or on earth, saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.This fantasy inference is not made by me it is inferred by Pope Benedict and I am only pointing it out.
The inference is made for example, when it is said that the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, refer to baptisms without the baptism of water( Wow! How would you know?!) and so there is salvation outside the Church(Yep! You've seen them in Heaven without 'faith and baptism').
For me there is no known salvation and so I follow the old ecclesiology based on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel
"This fantasy inference is not made by me it is inferred by Pope Benedict and I am only pointing it out."
I am not saying that you said it, Lionel. Ratzinger and the other members of the V2brain trust promoted the "fantasy inference" in V2 as a necessary prologue to the progressive agenda they were pushing on the Church. We probably agree on that point.
I reject only your assertion that by accepting "hypothetical cases as being hypothetical" we somehow automagically purge V2 documents of the progressivist intentions of their authors. As was pointed out above, "if the Cushing letter had not existed, it would have been necessary for the V2 conspirators to invent it."
Enough said.
Post a Comment