It's common knowledge that we cannot see or know people in Heaven as we see and know people on earth.People on earth are objective and real for us, while people in Heaven are part of our thoughts and imagination.
On earth things are concrete.We can see the butterflies and trees in the garden for example.But not everything is concrete. Yet they exist for us, like the thoughts in our mind, our feelings and beliefs.
With our eyes we cannot see our thoughts and feelings as we can see the trees and birds and human beings.So there are things which are explicit and there are concepts which are implicit.There are some things which are visible and there are aspects of life and nature which are invisible. We can make the distinction between what is objective and what is subjective. There is the known and the unknown, the concrete and the abstract.
We don't mix up the two.They are generally clear to most people. Even a young boy would know the difference between what is visible and invisible. One does not have to be educated, intelligent or even a theologian to see the difference.There are some objects seen while concepts are not. We can see humans on earth but not angels in Heaven or on earth.This is something so obvious yet we will see that it has been overlooked by so many people.
So if any one says that we humans in general can see people in heaven, we would not accept it. Since reason and experience for most people would say this is not true.
Even if someone like the President of a country, or the pope, would say that people in Heaven are visible on earth physically, we would not believe it. We know it would be irrational and false even if it was said by an important person.
We humans naturally make the distinction between what is visible and invisible,concrete and abstract , objective and subjective.
Similarly we reason out that there are some things which are different from other things. Some things are exceptions.
If there is an apple in a box of oranges then the apple is an exception since it is different and it exists. If the apple was not there physically in the box it would not be an exception. So it had to to exist in the box to be an exception. This is a simple observation that many people over look, including theologians.
Similarly if there was a group of tall boys at a street corner and another boy joins them who is short, then for an onlooker, that short boy would be different. He would also be an exception because he is there at that corner.He exists.
Let us take a third example. If there is a hospital medical ward with 10 patients and one of them is cured, then he is an exception.Not only because he is different but because he exists in that ward at that time.
So I will conclude this section by saying we can make a distinction between what is visible and invisible ,concrete and abstract, objective and subjective.And, for something to be an exception it must be different.It must also in some way exist in our reality .It's important that it exists, that it is there, for it to be an exception among the others.
So keeping these two philosiphical points, two natural ways of reasoning, I come to main subject :The Magisterial heresy.I would like to say at the onset that as a Catholic, I believe in the Teaching Authority of the Church, called the Magisterium. I believe the Magisterium in general is guided by God. I believe the Holy Spirit guides the Magisterium of the Church and the pope is infallible, when he speaks ex cathedra, along with the cardinals and bishops and in accord with Sacred Scripture and Tradition.
So under these conditions the Magisterium of the pope, is infallible when speaking on faith and morals .But the pope is fallible on other human issues. For example he may not know how to repair his computer, or forget to buy something he needs, or mixes up the names of people he meets. He could make a a wrong decision on a wordly issue due to misinformation.Or he could simply forget to check something.The human factor!Like all of us the pope could overlook something important.And it could be innocent, an accident.
So - did the pope overlook by accident something important? Did the pope make a factual error ? Was the distinction between what is visible and invisible blurred?
Did the Magisterium assume something was an exception , when it was not? Did they overlook something important about the Catholic Faith?
Yes they did. It was a simple error.It happened.
The Magisterium made a human error on a faith-issue.
The Magisterium contradicted itself and also contradicted the past Magisterium.
The present Magisterium over some 70 years , has changed a dogma of the Church with a simple error. And this cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.
The objective error was first made with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It was then extended to Vatican Council II and then to the encylicals of Pope John Paul II. It is there in ecumenical agreements like the Balamand Declaration and the Joint Declaration on Justification.The error is there in two theological papers of the Vatican's International Theological Commission.
What is this error? What precisely is it ? How could the popes and cardinals overlook something so obvious ?
For centuries the Catholic Church taught the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It said there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.All need to be formal members of the Church with faith and baptism. Every one needed to be a card carrying member of the Church, every one needed to have his or her name on the Parish Baptismal Register to avoid Hell and to go to Heaven.Outside the Church there was no known salvation.
This teaching is traced to Jesus' words in John 3:5, Mark 16:16. This was the Magisterial teaching for centuries.There was a consensus on it. No confusion or ambiguity.
Then it changed. Secular media and Catholic sources today would say the Church does not teach this any more. So how could the Magisterium of the past not be magisterial any more ? Where or what was the precise point, when the change was made and it was acceptable to the popes and cardinals, the defenders of the Catholic Faith ?
The change came with a mistake.
It was something that was overlooked.
The error was there in the Baltimore Catechism (1808).It was repeated in the Catechism of Pius X and it was out in the open, enforced, in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case. This was when the Holy Office issued the Letter to the Archbishop of Boston in 1949.The error was then placed in Vatican Council II.
But what was the precise error?
It was made by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani. He issued the Letter of 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. Some claim that it was not written by him .It was tampered with. It was only made public a few years after it was issued to the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Richard Cushing.
This controversial Letter criticizes Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center for what the media calls the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma.The Letter suggests that a person can be saved with the baptism of desire or blood or in invincible ignorance.And this is possible without the baptism of water.So for the Holy Office(CDF) there were exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney.If there were exceptions then it means these cases were explicit.
This was the precise error.
Explicit baptisms of desire and blood? How can they be explicit for us human beings.
Also the theologians at that time, cited the Baltimore Catechism with three baptisms, water, blood and desire.Three known baptisms ? Three explicit baptisms ? Yes the baptism of water is explicit, it can be seen and repeated. But the baptism of desire and blood are always implicit for us and known only to God.
So it was first wrongly assumed that these cases were explicit and secondly, the connection or link was made with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Here was the precise error.
Pope Pius XII through his silence supported Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani. He also approved the excommunication of Fr. Feeney, by Cardinal Richard Cushing.The Jesuits expelled Fr. Leonard Feeney and the pope said nothing.
Now after some 70 plus years we are asking ourself , how can the baptism of desire and blood be a baptism like the baptism of water ? Where is the proof ? Where is the concrete example?
How can these cases, with or without the baptism of water, who are now in Heaven, be an exception on earth to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
How can the baptism of desire and blood, cases which are known only to God and who do not exist in our reality,be an exception to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation in 2015?
How can people in Heaven, who are unknown and invisible for us be an exception to the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
How can non existent cases be relevant to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center's understanding of the dogma?
Was the Letter of the Holy Office not irrational? Was this not Magisterial irrationality?
If a pope or cardinal infers that people in Heaven are visible on earth it has to be a mistake.
If a pope or cardinal assumes non existent cases are an exception to the dogma it is a mistake.
Zero cases of something cannot be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus says the apologist John Martignoni.
Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson agrees that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Magisterium made a mistake.
Fr.P. Stefano Visintin OSB, Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Pontifical University St.Anselm, Rome also says there are no known exceptions.
Risultati immagini per Foto da Don P. Stefano Visintin OSB Rome
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are possibilities, he said, but are not known exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation. So the Magisterium made a mistake in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case and we can see the error placed in Vatican Council II. Why had the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance have to be mentioned in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 ? Whey were they mentioned along with orthodox passages which say all need faith and baptism for salvation?
What has being saved in invincible ignorance of the Gospel or with implicit desire for the baptism of water, have to do with all needing to convert into the Church with faith and baptism one may ask.Theoretical cases cannot be relevant to all needing to practically enter the Church for salvation.
Theoretical cases cannot be objective exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church. Can cases which are invisible for us be visible exceptions to all needing faith and baptism?
Did the Council Fathers make a mistake and assume these cases were visible instead of invisible? So they became relevant to the orthodox passages in AG 7, LG 14 which support the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.?
Why was this mentioned? Why was being saved with implicit desire for the baptism of water of an unknown catechuman have to be mentioned in Vatican Council II ?
Why did Cardinal Richard Cushing allow the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance to be mentioned in Vatican Council II I keep asking.He along with the U.S Jesuits were active at Vatican Council II. He still had not lifted the restrictions on Fr. Leonard Feeney at the time.
Th world believed that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for not accepting exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma. The cardinal never issued a clarification.
Cardinal Cushing made an objective mistake, a factual error in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case and he carried over that error into Vatican Council II.
It is a fact of life that we cannot know or see people saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire or blood or in invincible ignorance.How can the baptisms desire and blood be 'baptisms' when we cannot administer them, when we do not personally know any one saved as such.
So how could the Baltimore Catechism refer to three known baptisms?
The Nicene Creed states there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sin and the dogma on salvation also mentions only one baptism, the baptism of water.Only one.
The Athanasius Creed like the Nicene Creed does not mention any exceptions.The Athanasius Creed also says all need to be formal members of the Church for salvation.All. No exceptions.
So where are these explicit exceptions? There are none.Look around you.Do you know someone saved with invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire? Do you know who they are or where do they live?
The popes made a mistake. They assumed invisible, implicit and abstract cases were visible, explicit and concrete for us. Then upon this objective error they crested a theology.
An injustice was done to Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center in Boston.The baptism of desire had nothing to do with the dogma.
An injustice was done also to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Since Vatican Council II was a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus only if LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc were assumed to be explicit, visible and seen in the flesh. If they are seen as they are, invisible, hypothetical and known only to God, they are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Magisterium did not tell him this.
The Magisterium did not know this. They did not inform Archbishop Lefebvre that Vatican Council II could be interpreted in agreement with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma and in accord with the Syllabus of Errors.
For Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican Council II was a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.LG 16 was explicit.
For Archbishop Lefebvre Vatican Council II ( with the inference, the dead- saved and now in Heaven, without the baptism of water are exceptions to the dogma) was heresy and a break with Tradition. He was correct.
He was excommunicated.
It was a bad excommunication since the Archbishop was saying something which was obvious to Catholics.Vatican Council II ( with the inference) was non traditional and an innovation.It was heretical.
The Magisterium did not know at that time that Vatican Council II could also be interpreted in agreement with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The non heretical version.
The Magisterium at the time of the excommunication did not know that the Holy Office 1949 had made an objective mistake. The Archbishop too did not know it.
The Magisterium was in heresy.
The contemporary Magisterium was promoting a Vatican Council II which contradicted itself.LG 16 contradicted AG 7 adn LG 14.Explicit for us LG 16 contradicted all needing faith and baptism for salvation.(AG 7, LG 14)
The contemporary Magisterium was also opposing the pre- 1808 Magisterium with its exceptions theory.
At one time the Magisterium had to be wrong-before or after the Baltimore Catechism.
Before or after the 1949 Boston Case, at one time the Magisterium had to be wrong.
Due to overlooking the explicit-implicit distinction , a magisterial heresy was created.
The good news though is that the error though is not fixed.It is not permanent.
There is hope for the future.
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of blood are always implicit and invisible for us.So they are acceptable as being hypothetical and followed by the baptism of water.They can only be hypothetical for us.There is no other choice. They cannot be visible cases.
So they do not contradict the orthodox passages in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) which support the strict interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.
Vatican Council II ( without the inference) we see, is Feeneyite.It is in agreement with Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 , one of the three Church Councils which defined the dogma.
Vatican Council II is in agreement with the Council of Trent which mentions the phrase ' or the desire thereof,' but does not state that this implicit desire is explicit or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Vatican Council II is in agreement with the Athanasius Creed and the Nicene Creed when the implicit-explicit distinction is made.
Vatican Council II and the Feeneyite version of the dogma is in agreement with the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257) which says 'the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water'.We do not know any one who is saved without the baptism of water, because 'God is not bound to the Sacraments' (CCC 1257). We do not know any one who is an exception to the dogma on salvation because ' all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church ' (CCC 846).So CCC 846 and 1257 do not contradict Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center.
The Holy Spirit still guides the Magisterium of the Church and Vatican Council II is in agreement with Tradition.There is a hermenutic of continuity and no hermeneutic of rupture.
Vatican Council II like the past popes and saints still says all Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and Muslims need to formally enter the Church with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14) for salvation.All Christians need Catholic Faith ( AG 7, LG 14) to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. Faith includes the Sacraments and the faith and moral teachings of the Church, which have not changed.
In conclusion it means the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) can accept a Vatican Council II in which LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc are implicit and not explicit. So they will be accepting Vatican Council II always with the old exclusivist ecclesiology and the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It will be in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors.They will be accepting the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney along with implicit and theoretical for us baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance . It will be followed by the baptism of water in a manner known only to God, as St.Thomas Aquinas and St. Francis Xavier explained it.They can have it both ways. It does not have to be extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney or the baptism of desire.The baptism of desire is hypothetical. So it is compatible with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma and this does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
Since accepting Vatican Council II is a requirement for canonical status they can accept Vatican Council II without the irrational inference.And they can reject the Magisterium's interpretation of Vatican Council II with the irrational inference.
They must reject this magisterial heresy.
Similarly the Franciscans of the Immaculate, who want to offer only the Traditional Latin Mass, with the old ecclesiology can accept Vatican Council II without the irrational inference of being able to to see people in Heaven who are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They can affirm the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Traditional Latin Mass which is not contradicted by Vatican Council II.LG 16 is implicit and not explicit.Ecclesiology would not depend on the liturgy. So even the Friars who offer the Novus Ordo Mass can interpret Vatican Council II rationally. All the Franciscans of the Immaculate, would have to follow the old ecclesiology. Rationally there is no other choice.
Also the sedevacantists CMRI, sedevacantist websites and others, can interpret Vatican Council II in agreement with the old ecclesiology and so the doctrinal basis for their sedevacantism has been removed.They can ask Pope Francis to also affirm Vatican Council II interpreted rationally.
The Magisterial mistake has been corrected.The heresy avoided.
Script for video The Magisterial Heresy - 2
Script for video The Magisterial Heresy - 3
Lionel L. Andrades
- Posts : 20
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2015-05-11
Lionel L. Andrades
- Posts : 20
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2015-05-11