Latest topics
» Magsiterial Heresy ?
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magisterium should apologise to the SSPX for the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:34 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Francis MICM made a mistake on Vatican Council II
Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Legion of Christ universities in Rome adapt to leftist laws
Fri May 22, 2015 7:53 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» CM, SSPX, MICM deny the Faith to please superiors
Thu May 21, 2015 4:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX and Church Militant are using the same liberal theology and are unaware of it
Wed May 20, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Michael Voris uses liberal theology and yet critcizes Michael Coren
Tue May 19, 2015 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fr.John Zuhlsdorf condones Mass for suicide
Tue May 19, 2015 9:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II is traditional or liberal depending on how you interpret the Letter of the Holy Office
Mon May 18, 2015 5:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Church Militant unable to answer questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Sun May 17, 2015 5:55 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Andre Marie MICM and Christine Niles approve liberal theology on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Christine Niles misses the elephant in the living room
Fri May 15, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Cardinal Pell recommends the Roman Forum and telling a lie
Wed May 13, 2015 9:43 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» GOOGLE CLOSES DOWN BLOG EUCHARIST AND MISSION
Tue May 12, 2015 9:23 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this
Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:25 am by George Brenner

» Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error
Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:27 pm by tornpage

» Fr.Robert Barron in Catholicism uses an irrational proposition to reach an irrational conclusion
Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:49 am by Lionel Andrades

» Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Mass
Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:25 am by Lionel Andrades

» Beautiful Gregorian Chant
Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:10 pm by tornpage

» Fr.Robert Barron in Catholicism uses an irrational proposition to reach an irrational conclusion
Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:47 am by Lionel Andrades


Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error

Post  Lionel Andrades on Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:02 am



The Real Presence Association has posted on its website an article by Fr.John Hardon s.j,Christ to Catholicism. Part two: Dogmatic Ecclesiology, No Salvation Outside of the Church'. Cardinal Raymond Leo  Burke has approved it.1

There are factual errors in the article. The same errors are there in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani.

Like Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani, Fr.John Hardon assumed that being saved with implicit desire ( and without the baptism of water) or in invincible ignorance, were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma.

We now know that those who are saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance, allegedly without the baptism of water, are in Heaven. So how can they be explicit exceptions on earth to the strict interpretation of the dogma, it is asked.

Fr.John Hardon also assumed that the Church Fathers and Church documents before 1949 tell us that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma. There is no such magisterial document before 1949. They only refer to persons being saved with implicit desire or in inculpable ignorance. They do not tell us that these cases are known to us.Nor is it said that they are explicit exceptions to the dogma. This has to be inferred- wrongly. Fr.Hardon like Cardinal Marchetti makes this wrong inference in the article.

In the recent interview given to Rorate Caeili Cardinal Raymond Burke recommended the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Catechism in 1257 says the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water. CCC 1257 also says God is not limited to the Sacraments,.This is contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction. It cannot be said all in 2015 need the baptism of water for salvation but some do not.

This confusion comes from the Letter of the Holy Office. The first part of the Letter affirms the traditional interpretation of the dogma which does not mention any exceptions. The second part of the Letter infers that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma. So the second half of the Letter contradicts the first half.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, like the International Theological Commission, assumes that those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance, refer to objective cases. This is a false premise. Then it is assumed that these persons  now in Heaven, are explicit exceptions to the strict interpretatiion of the dogma. This is a false conclusion.An irrational premise will produce an irrational conclusion.

Fr.John Hardon also used an irrational premise to create an irrational, non traditional conclusion.

This was approved by Cardinal Raymond Burke who probably also uses the false premise, the Marchetti Inference, to reject the traditional interpretation, the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.For him too the dogma 'developed' in 1949.
-Lionel Andrades

1.
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_032.htm
http://www.hardonsj.org/biography/



Rome made a mistake in 1949 and Fr.John Hardon did not notice it
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/rome-made-mistake-in-1949-and-frjohn_3.html

The Catechumen you refer to is a hypothetical case for you and me. So it is not an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : Fr.John Hardon too did not notice this
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/the-catechuman-you-refer-to-is.html

The Council of Trent, Mystici Corporis no where says that these cases are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : Rome made a mistake in 1949
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/the-council-of-trent-mystici-corporis.html

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

What was Fr. Hardons error that Cardinal Burke approved?

Post  Lionel Andrades on Thu Mar 05, 2015 8:00 am

What was Fr. Hardons error that Cd. Burke approved? Just trying to keep up.

Lionel:

Fr.John Hardon's error was that he made an irrational inference. He assumed that being saved in invincible ignorance or with implicit desire referred to personally known, nameable cases in the present times.This was a false inference.This then became a false premise for him. Since he concluded that these cases of persons saved, this category of people, now in Heaven, were explicit exceptions to all needing the baptism of water, in the present times.They were exceptions to all needing to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. So based on the wrong premise, he wrongly concluded that every one did not defacto, in the present times, need to enter the Church for salvation. He used an irrational premise ( the dead-saved are visible on earth) which resulted in an irrational conclusion ( everyone does not have to defacto enter the Church).

Since he assumed that  salvation in Heaven is explicit for us, those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance, became exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So for him every one did not have to become a formal member of the Church, but only they had to,  who were not in invinciblle ignorance.While  those who knew about Jesus and the Church and yet did not enter were on the way to Hell.So he changed the original teaching which said all with Original Sin need the baptism of water.

This was the original mistake made by the Holy Office and the Archdiocese of Boston in 1949 when they assumed that a category of people now in Heaven were objective exceptions on earth to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Fr.Hardon wrote an article on outside the Church there is no salvation in which he repeated this mistake.Also as a consultant to the Holy See on the Catechism of the Catholic Church he let this error pass conspicuously in CCC 1257 (The Necessity of Baptism) and with confusion in CCC 846 (Outside the Church No Salvation).

Cardinal Raymond Burke approved this article by Fr.Hardon. Cardinal Buke also recommends the Catechism of the Catholic Church which incorporates this confusion while he has never affirmed the traditional strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

This is also observed in Cardinal Raymond Burke's criticism of Vatican Council II. Salvation in Heaven is an explicit exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma. So LG 16,LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to visible in the flesh cases in 2015. Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors for Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke. It is a break with the traditional teaching on other religions and Christian communities.This was also Fr.John Hardon's mistake.

If salvation in Heaven was not explicit, seen in the flesh for them, then there would be nothing in Vatican Counicl II to contradict the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.Vatican Council II would be Feeneyite.It would not contradict the traditional teaching on non Catholics needing to convert into the Church to avoid Hell. Since the ecclesiology would still be traditional.

-Lionel Andrades

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error

Post  George Brenner on Thu Mar 05, 2015 9:30 am

Well this really should not have been posted by you, Lionel under Catholic news but since this was a post of desire I will reply here.

Lionel,

Vox Cantorius, who posted on your website was spot on correct. How many years have you been rebuked on your private interpretations? The Catechism of the Catholic Church is part of VCII and not in contradiction of VCII. You are systematically trying to drag even the most holy of Catholics down with your erroneous conclusions. What is next for you Saint John Paul II when as part of VCII he said in in his encyclical Redemptoris Missio:

"The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation"

Our marching orders are simple in the words of Pope Pius IX in Singulari Quadum: " but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic
teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry" ......he was talking to ALL Catholics. All of these conditions related to God's mercies through states of sanctity are completely irrelevant to all Catholics teaching the faith exactly as Pius IX and the Church so ordered.
This will be my last communication with you until you recant your errors but be assured that you are in my prayers.

and so we pray

George Brenner

George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict also used the false premise and conclusion

Post  Lionel Andrades on Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:57 am

Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict also used the false premise and conclusion from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Vox Cantorius is spot on correct. How many years have you been rebuked on your private interpretations?
Lionel:
Sorry they are not private revelations.
I affirm Vatican Council II, except that I do not use the irrational premise and conclusion in the interpretation.

_______________________

The catechism of the catholic Church is part of VCII and not in contradiction of VCII.
Lionel:
I interpret the Catechism and Vatican Council II without the false premise and conclusion.
You do not make this distinction.

_________________________

You are systematically trying to drag even the most holy of Catholics down with your erroneous conclusions.
Lionel:
I am affirming the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which does not mention any exceptions.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was a break with the dogma and the Syllabus of Errors.
The magisterium accepted this break with Tradition. It was a new doctrine brought into the Catholic Church.
The break was possible because an irrational inference was used.No one identified it.
The same irrtionality is used to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with traditional teaching.
We have a choice.
We can use the irrational premise or avoid.
I assert my choice. I avoid it.

_________________________

What is next for you Saint John Paul II when as part of VCII he said in in his encyclical Redemptoris Missio:
Lionel:
Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict I have pointed out in many blogposts also used the false premise and conclusion from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
We can see its influence in Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus
.
_____________________

"The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation.
Lionel:
He is adapting to the error in the Letter of the Holy Office.
O.K say we agreed with this specuation, how is this case an explicit exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma in 2015?
And if it is not an exception then why did he have to mention it?

__________________________

This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation"
Lionel:
Yes I agree that this person can be saved and this speculative case, would be saved also with the baptism of water.

_______________________

Our marching orders are simple in the words of Pope Pius IX in Singulari Quadum: " but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic
teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" [Eph. 4:5];
Lionel:
Before 1949 this one faith did not mention any explicit exceptions to the dogma.

____________________

it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry" he was talking to ALL Catholics.
Lionel:
He was also talking to you who accept irrationality and heresy in the name of the Catholic Faith.

________________________

This will be my last communication with you until you recant your errors but be assured that you are in my prayers.
Lionel:
O.K however you are free to communicate with me in future if you wish, even though your position keeps changing on this issue.
-Lionel Andrades

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error

Post  tornpage on Fri Mar 06, 2015 11:20 am

George Brenner wrote: Well this really should not have been posted by you, Lionel under Catholic news but since this was a post of desire I will reply here.

Lionel,

 Vox Cantorius, who posted on your website was spot on correct. How many years have you been rebuked on your private interpretations? The Catechism of the Catholic Church is part of VCII and not in contradiction of VCII. You are systematically trying to drag even the most holy of Catholics down with your erroneous conclusions. What is next for you Saint John Paul II when as part of VCII he said in  in his encyclical Redemptoris Missio:

"The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation"

Our marching orders are simple in the words of Pope Pius IX in Singulari Quadum: " but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic
teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" [Eph. 4]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry" ......he was talking to ALL Catholics. All of these conditions related to God's mercies through states of sanctity are completely irrelevant to all Catholics teaching the faith exactly as Pius IX and the Church so ordered.
This will be my last communication with you until you recant your errors but be assured that you are in my prayers.

and so we pray

George Brenner

Every time I see that quote from Redemptoris Missio I expect a knock on the door from the security force of the UN with a warrant for half of my personal library . . . and perhaps handcuffs for me. 

That quote is to me like a red flag to a bull. It’s the bullseye on the cardboard figure of the ecumenical man . . . 

If I don’t stop I’ll start frothing.

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error

Post  tornpage on Fri Mar 06, 2015 11:22 am

George,

And that huge picture too?!!! 

Your post was the day’s Lenten trial.

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error

Post  Jehanne on Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:39 pm

tornpage wrote:The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation"

How did Pope John Paul II "know" the above (that is, the bold and underlined sections)?  Seems to me that he was operating under naturalistic premises.

Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error

Post  tornpage on Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:46 pm

Jehanne wrote:
tornpage wrote:The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation"

How did Pope John Paul II "know" the above (that is, the bold and underlined sections)?  Seems to me that he was operating under naturalistic premises.


Hey, Jehanne. 

Yes, operating under “naturalistic premises” flying in a huge fog of humanism. 

Let us wear hats. Big ones with broad brims. Smile

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error

Post  Jehanne on Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:04 pm

Seems like JP II was being a deist.  ("Yeah, God exists, but He does not bring His Gospel to those folks who, due to 'social and cultural conditions', are incapable of embracing the One True Faith.")

Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error

Post  George Brenner on Sat Mar 07, 2015 1:16 pm


When I was in grade school and for part of my time in high school, the religious and church militant in the great majority knew that the Catholic Church was the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation. Most importantly that is what was taught in earnest. Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance were mentioned as recognition of sanctity that a person might possess that would be pleasing to God for salvation. Very little time was spent on dwelling, suggesting or excusing anyone from entering , remaining or returning to the Catholic Church. It was just that simple! That all changed with Vatican II and its aftermath to the point where the certainty of salvation in Catholicism was and is all but ignored in catechesis. Worst than that, it is a free for all by all but a remnant of (c)atholics who teach that salvation can and is readily available outside the Church or stretch God's possible mercies to the heretical. What is "on the books" in VCII and its aftermath was and is protected by the Holy Ghost otherwise Peter's faith has failed and the Church did not persevere until the end of time as Jesus promised. It takes a Theologians theologian to interpret and give credence to much of what was and is being said by VCII to Catholics at EVERY level. Never the less it is also true that with great sorrow it can be said that if Jesus were to return today where would he find the faith? As it stands today we have deteriorated in faithful teaching to the point where Peter's faith is very troublesome and much prayer combined with possible resistance may be necessary by faithful Catholics. I am still surprised that faithful Catholics do not understand that this punishment is allowed and willed by God. WE DESERVE THIS PUNISHMENT! Depending on which Catholic poll that you look at today, forty percent of Catholics believe that homosexual marriage IS acceptable. Take a look at all of the other issues that a Catholic must believe to to be on the right side of the salvation fence. Too many catholics are on the loss of soul side. How many true practicing Catholics are left in the world?

Of course St. John Paul II was stating the obvious when he said in his encyclical Redemptoris Missio "But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions" Let's get serious! Over the last many decades and generations where are non Catholics to hear the beauty and truth of our catholic faith and its absolute necessity for salvation? If Catholics themselves have not been taught this for generations, how in the world will non Catholics come to know the truth. News flash.... the ecumenical dialogue greatly hurts and disappoints Jesus, for it is wrong in its current hypothesis. It is love and charity lacking in truth. So if a Catholic who knows(as Catholics all are commanded to know and lovingly accept) that the Catholic Church is the one true Church outside which there is no salvation and does not teach this to EVEN their fellow Catholics how in the world is this bedrock of truth that is necessary for salvation going to reach the billions who are alive who are not Catholic? The souls of Catholics are in extreme danger for not teaching the faith to all from Pope to pew sitter and will be accountable at their judgment for their disobedience to Jesus. I repeat, so how will non Catholics in the world gain this knowledge if not from Catholics? Pray and pause on that for a few minutes. They would by necessity have to have the direct intervention from God which would be necessary since Catholics REFUSE to teach all nations. I would have liked it if St. John Paul's II's words had coupled with it that a Catholics responsibilities in helping to save souls in his encyclical. It is time to for faithful Catholics to change gears from lamenting the problems and work for the cure....and so I will........will you join me?

...and so we pray,

George

George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error

Post  tornpage on Thu Mar 12, 2015 10:37 am

George Brenner wrote:
  When I was in grade school and for part of my time in high school, the religious and church militant in the great majority knew that the Catholic Church was the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation. Most importantly that is what was taught in earnest. Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance were mentioned as recognition of sanctity that a person might possess that would be pleasing to God for salvation. Very little time was spent on dwelling, suggesting or excusing anyone from entering , remaining or returning to the Catholic Church. It was just that simple!   That all changed with Vatican II and its aftermath to the point where the certainty of salvation in Catholicism was and is all but ignored in catechesis. Worst than that, it is a free for all by all but a remnant of  (c)atholics  who teach that salvation can and is readily available outside the Church or stretch God's possible mercies to the heretical. What is "on the books" in VCII and its aftermath was and is protected by the Holy Ghost otherwise Peter's faith has failed and the Church did not persevere until the end of time as Jesus promised. It takes a Theologians theologian to interpret and give credence to much of what was and is being said by VCII to Catholics at EVERY level. Never the less it is also true that with great sorrow it can be said that if Jesus were to return today where would he find the faith? As it stands today we have deteriorated in faithful teaching to the point where Peter's faith is very troublesome and much prayer combined with possible resistance may be necessary by faithful Catholics. I am still surprised that faithful Catholics do not understand that this punishment is allowed and willed by God. WE DESERVE THIS PUNISHMENT! Depending on which Catholic poll that you look at today, forty percent of Catholics believe that homosexual marriage IS acceptable. Take a look at all of the other issues that a Catholic must believe to   to be on the right side of the salvation fence. Too many catholics are on the loss of soul side. How many true practicing Catholics are left in the world?

  Of course St. John Paul II was stating the obvious when he said in his encyclical Redemptoris Missio "But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions" Let's get serious! Over the last many decades and generations where are non Catholics to hear the beauty and truth of our catholic faith and its absolute necessity for salvation? If Catholics themselves have not been taught this for generations, how in the world will non Catholics come to know the truth. News flash.... the ecumenical dialogue greatly hurts and disappoints Jesus, for it is wrong in its current hypothesis. It is love and charity lacking in truth. So if a Catholic who knows(as Catholics all are commanded to know and lovingly accept) that the Catholic Church is the one true Church outside which there is no salvation and does not teach this to EVEN their fellow Catholics how in the world is this bedrock of truth that is necessary for salvation going to reach the billions who are alive who are not Catholic? The souls of Catholics are in extreme danger for not teaching the faith to all from Pope to pew sitter and will be accountable at their judgment for their disobedience to Jesus. I repeat, so how will non Catholics in the world gain this knowledge if not from Catholics?  Pray and pause on that for a few minutes. They would by necessity have to have the direct intervention from God which would be necessary since Catholics REFUSE to teach all nations. I would have liked it if St. John Paul's  II's words had coupled with it that a Catholics responsibilities in helping to save souls in his encyclical. It is time to for faithful Catholics to change gears from lamenting the problems and work for the cure....and so I will........will you join me?

...and so we pray,

George
 
George,

Pray tell . . . what is “obvious” about it?

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error

Post  tornpage on Thu Mar 12, 2015 10:43 am

Jehanne wrote:Seems like JP II was being a deist.  ("Yeah, God exists, but He does not bring His Gospel to those folks who, due to 'social and cultural conditions', are incapable of embracing the One True Faith.")

I don’t know about being a “deist,” but he was, to me, by implication denying several truths of the faith: a) that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church; and, b) the sovereign predestination of His people to salvation by God. 

The truth of both makes logical and consistent the following: God does not predestine the saved to a salvation other than through the faith in Christ and the waters of baptism. And He does predestine His people . . . and not to salvation qua Muslims, Jews, Hindus, pagans, etc. 

Statements to the contrary being non-binding error. 

Of course, that is my personal opinion which I am free to hold as a Catholic. 

And I affirm I am free to reject the apparent meaning of JPII’s statement - which maybe is only “apparent” to me. 

The VII field of rabbit holes.

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error

Post  George Brenner on Thu Mar 12, 2015 10:55 am

What is "obvious" is that ALL save a few in the Church ceased to teach the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation. The Pope should have both acknowledged and corrected the lack of teaching the faith for centuries. As I mentioned before this quote takes a theologians theology to interpret it without implied heresy. Instead of dwelling and promoting the possibility of salvation for those in ignorance he should have coupled this part of the encyclical with a caveat that the faith MUST be taught to all peoples that might be in this possible and probable condition primarily due to lack of the Church teaching the faith. Of course it is obvious while being terrible catechesis at the same time. For it to remain faithful teaching it has to be explained and made clear. Mark, are you interested in being part of the plea and petition for a syllabus.
That is a must for these times !

JMJ,

George

George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error

Post  tornpage on Thu Mar 12, 2015 11:10 am

Maybe I’d signed something . . . who knows. 

It’s in God’s hands, George.

He willed this. Meditate on that a bit.

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error

Post  George Brenner on Thu Mar 12, 2015 12:40 pm

Mark,

You are 100% correct. God both allowed and willed this punishment. We truly deserve the times we live in. We did not safeguard the faith by insisting on a smorgasbord, feel good anything goes version of Catholicism. We were warned repeatedly. I feel compelled to fight for my faith. Deja vu; have we been going in circles? And now we are looking straight down the barrel of the Synod on the Family or should I say the Synod on who are not really a family but need to be treated with compassion and mercy and by the process of gradualism will feel the love and thus return to something that can not be defined or taught lest we offend those too who still have not been identified and do not agree with or understand why truth has to be defined by anything other than man's desire to be free and most of all just needs to feel the love without any judgment or consequences by anyone..............
as taken from the book of babel , the gospel of puke.



George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error

Post  tornpage on Thu Mar 12, 2015 1:38 pm

George Brenner wrote:Mark,

 You are 100% correct. God both allowed and willed this punishment. We truly deserve the times we live in. We did not safeguard the faith by insisting on  a smorgasbord, feel good anything goes version of Catholicism. We were warned repeatedly. I feel compelled to fight for my faith. Deja vu; have we been going in circles?  And now we are looking straight down the barrel of the Synod on the Family or should I say the Synod on who are not really a family but need to be treated with compassion and mercy and by the process of gradualism will feel the love and thus return to something that can not be defined or taught lest we offend those too who still have not been identified and  do not agree with or understand why truth has to be defined by anything other than man's desire to be free and most of all just needs to feel the love without any judgment or consequences by anyone..............
as taken from the book of babel , the gospel of puke.



I know George - you’re a good Catholic.

Just seems to me like everybody’s got a syllabus, or wants to write one. 

The Church has a big tent and always has. Many good Catholics over the centuries have disagreed with popes, theologians who say this or that. 

Seems to me much of this dispute comes down to exaggerated notions of the Church’s infallibility or indefectibility. The Sedes - this can’t be the Church because the Church is indefectible when it says x or y and what it says is x or y now is in error, ego, it can’t be the Church. Then the other extreme: the Church is indefectible and infallible so when it says x or y it must be true. Then there are the shades in between, where most of us fall. 

I say as to JPII, the apparent meaning (as I take it) of his remarks in Redemptoris Missio - that one can be saved without the Catholic faith if there are exterior obstacles or interior obstacles for which fault cannot be attributed - is wrong. I say any suggestion in the Catechism along the same lines, is wrong. And I’m not getting tied up into knots or losing any sleep over it. 

I say there are “errors” being taught by popes, prelates, theologians in the Church, and that there have been in “official” type pronouncements - encyclicals, catechisms, councils etc. - since the 19th century - none prior come to my mind - and that doesn’t make me doubt that the Church is the Church - is the visible sign for us of what God is up to on a grand scale - or that the popes, Paul VI, JPII, Benedict XVI, Francis were or are the popes. This “revolt" has been predicted for us - as St. Paul would say, “i’ve told you before.” 

I say priests, bishops, popes, theologians and the manualists can spin on and on about indefectibility and infallibility all they want, and its all argument, discussion, speculation, and that many are taken into fool’s land (the sedes and the neocons, and myself included) and make ridiculous arguments. 

I love our faith, as you do, and enjoy discussing these things, studying the faith, etc. - but there’s so much nonsense going on on both sides.

Finally, I say I didn’t say much up there of any importance whatsoever but it made me feel good. Smile

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error

Post  tornpage on Thu Mar 12, 2015 1:48 pm

I posted this article here before, and its apropos:

http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t421-toleration

Here’s the bit about Erasmus and Cardinal Newman:


1. Erasmus of Rotterdam

On the subject of Erasmus of Rotterdam, St Alphonsus Liguori tells us that he called the invocation of Our Lady and of the saints idolatry; he condemned monasteries and religious vows and rules, opposed the celibacy of the clergy, jeered at indulgences, relics, feasts, fasts and even auricular confession. He went do far as to claim that man is justified by faith alone and to call into doubt the authority of the Scriptures and of the Councils. St Alphonsus adds that Erasmus accused of audacity the granting of the name of "God" to the Holy Ghost! So it is not surprising to see St Alphonsus quote the proverb according to which Luther hatched out the egg that Erasmus had laid. Nor is it surprising to learn from him that "several writers openly accuse Erasmus of heresy".

But was Erasmus for all that a heretic? He was esteemed by several popes, one of whom asked him to refute Luther. He remained a close friend of St Thomas More. St Alphonsus concludes in his own name, with Bernini, that Erasmus died with the character of an unsound Catholic, but not of a heretic, as he submitted all his writings to the judgement of the Church. (History of Heresies and their Refutation)

What is quite certain is that notwithstanding his doctrines, which even before the Council of Trent could scarcely be considered excusable from the censure of heresy, notwithstanding numerous contemporary complaints and refutations, and notwithstanding his great learning, which diminished the possibility of blameless ignorance, it was and is permissible to consider Erasmus a Catholic. Were one to hold him definitely a heretic, it would follow that Pope Paul III, St Thomas More and many other excellent Catholics remained in communion with a heretic. 

Those who today see pertinacity on all sides among traditional Catholics could hardly fail to hold that Erasmus was a heretic and therefore to censure all these good Catholics as heretics or schismatics for remaining in communion with him. Such a conclusion is clearly incorrect and can only be based on false premises.


2. John Henry Cardinal Newman

In 1845 an Anglican minister became a Catholic - John Henry Newman. Already learned in patristics, he did not equip himself with an adequate formation in Catholic theology. Ordained priest, he wrote on theological questions, admitting errors in Holy Scripture, salvation outside the Church, etc. One of the propositions later condemned by St Pius X's Lamentabili (Prop. 25) appears three times verbatim in different writings of Newman. Naturally in the prelude to the 1870 Vatican Council he opposed papal infallibility. His writings were attacked by Cardinals Franzelin, Lépicier and Billot, by Perrone and Brownson among others. Cardinal Manning reproached him with ten distinct heresies to be found in his writings. Other bishops spoke of his heresies also. Detailed refutations appeared which he could hardly have been unaware of. Nonetheless he retracted nothing.

So was he a heretic? Far from being excommunicated...he was himself raised to the cardinalate! The whole Church remained in communion with him. The only explanation for this must be that, despite appearances, his errors were not deemed to be directly and explicitly heretical...or else that the Catholics of the day, from the pope down, had a conception of pertinacity considerably more demanding than that in circulation among members of that sedevacantist school which hurls its anathemas so lightly in our days.


tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error

Post  tornpage on Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:27 pm

George Brenner wrote:What is "obvious" is that ALL save a few in the Church ceased to teach the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation. The Pope should have both acknowledged and corrected the lack of teaching the faith for centuries. As I mentioned before this quote takes a theologians theology to interpret it without implied heresy. Instead of dwelling  and promoting the possibility of salvation for those in ignorance he should have coupled this part of the encyclical with a caveat that the faith MUST be taught to all peoples  that might be in this possible and probable condition primarily due to lack of the Church teaching the faith. Of course it is obvious while being terrible catechesis at the same time. For it to remain faithful teaching it has to be explained and made clear. Mark, are you interested in being part of the plea and petition for a syllabus.
That is a must for these times !

JMJ,

George

Got ya. 

For a minute there I thought you were saying that he was obviously right in saying . . . what he said. LOL

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error

Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:40 am


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum