Father Chad Ripperger was recently interviewed by Terry Barber and Jesse Romero on their podcast, “Full Sheen Ahead.” A small excerpt of the interview was turned into a short stand-alone video on YouTube and entitled, “Exorcist Explains How Catholics/Non-Catholics Are Saved.”
That clip begins with Terry Barber mentioning the concept of “limited papal infallibility” (meaning that the Holy Father can possibly be wrong when not invoking his unique charism of infallibility) and asking Father Ripperger about a recent statement of Pope Francis to the effect that all religions are paths that lead to God. Father ultimately and truthfully answered the question by denying the assertion that God positively wills non-Catholic religions and that they are all paths to God. He called them “false religions.”
Before giving that response, though, Father Ripperger prefaced his remarks by bringing up the dogma, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He stated that this dogma is undeniably Catholic teaching, taught by the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence (just for the record: he did not mention Pope Bonifice VIII’s Unam Sanctam). He affirmed strongly that this doctrine has been formally defined and has been otherwise taught by numerous popes and doctors of the Church.
AMDG
23 comments:
Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation is a formally defined doctrine of the Church. Unless you are a formally baptized Catholic in the Church you cannot be saved. The ordinary means of salvation is the Catholic Church says Fr. Ripperger. All other religions by their nature are not means to God the Catholic Church is the only established means of salvation.
I agree with Fr. Ripperger. The Councils did not mention any exceptions and in real life, we humans cannot know of any, in particular for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which he cited.
The following points he mentioned refer to hypothetical cases only. They refer to invisible cases in 2024 for us human beings. So they did not contradict the dogma EENS which he quoted.
1. It does not mean that a Protestant can be saved but they are not saved by virtue of their religion. (Lionel: If there was any such person in 2024 it would only be known to God.)
2. Trent refers to the baptism of desire. (Lionel: The baptism of desire is always invisible for us human beings. The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston made an objective error. It projected invisible- in- 1949 cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS.)
3. There are those go give their life for Jesus even though they were not formally baptized.(Lionel: With good will we can hope that there are such cases but in 1949-2024 we do not known of any practical case. So ‘the baptism of blood’ is not an objective exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which the exorcist cited)
4. The Apocalypse refers to people of every nation and race who will be saved. (Lionel: Ad Gentes 7 in Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism for salvation. So Vatican Council II is saying that in Heaven there are only Catholics. This is also the message of the Athanasius Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is also the teaching of the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc.)
5. If a Protestant happens to be saved how do you reconcile this with ‘no salvation outside the Church’? (Lionel: It is an invisible case for us. So it does not contradict the dogma EENS. Before 1949 they knew that there was no explicit case of St. Thomas Aquinas’ implicit baptism of desire. There are no literal cases of the baptism of desire said Bishop Athanasius Schneider in an interview with Dr. Taylor Marshall.)
6. If anyone is saved outside the Church they are saved by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. (Lionel: Yes, theoretically speaking. In reality we do not know of any case in 2024)
7. If a Protestant is saved he is saved by mediation of the Catholic Church. (Lionel: Yes but this should not projected against the dogma EENS. Since we cannot see or meet a Protestant saved outside the Church, since 1949)
8. If a Protestant is validly baptized they have Sanctifying Grace and are part of the mystical union of the Church,” even though visibly they might be outside the Church”. (Lionel: Yes, hypothetically. De facto there is no such known case for us).
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
9. If they formally do not reject the Catholic Church, which does not mean that they do not believe in it…, they can be saved.(Lionel: We have to make the distinction between what is implicit and explicit, unseen and seen, unknown or known. There are no such known cases. We cannot say that any particular Protestant or non Christian will go to Heaven even though visibly outside the Church)
10. It is possible for a Protestant to be saved because of invincible ignorance and if they have not committed a mortal sin. (Lionel: Theoretically, yes. But a possibility is not a formal exception for the dogma EENS).
11. God gives all people who have reached the age of reason sufficient grace to be saved, so even the Buddhist in Tibet who has never heard of the Catholic Church, is going to be given sufficient grace to be saved and they can be saved.(Lionel: A possibility is not a known exception. We cannot say that any particular Buddhist in Tibet or elsewhere will be saved without the ordinary means of salvation).
12. The minimum bar is that if some in ignorance lived according to the teachings of the Catholic Church, if they knew, they could be saved. They would want to be baptized. (Lionel: Yes theoretically, but this should not be mentioned with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is irrelevant. It is what the apologist John Martignoni would call ‘a zero case’.
13. There is the ordinary and extraordinary means of salvation, in the sense God is still mediating through the Catholic Church. (Lionel: The extraordinary means of salvation can only be known to God. There is no extra ordinary salvation known to us humans. We cannot say that a St. Emerentiana is in Heaven without the baptism of desire. She is in Heaven and is declared a saint. But no one can confirm that she was there without the baptism of water.)
14. So through the extraordinary means they can be saved “and there are cases in which they are saved”. (Lionel. Hopefully there are such cases in which they are saved through the extra ordinary way but they are unknown to people on earth, in for example, 1965-2024. So these unknown cases should not be posited as exceptions for the Councils, which defined EENS and did not mention any exception.)
15. If a non Catholic or Protestant is saved they are saved in spite of their religion. (Lionel: O.K but this does not contradict the dogma EENS mentioned by the Council of Trent, the Baltimore Catechism etc. Possibilities known only to God are not formal exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed etc.- Lionel Andrades
I don't understand your headline. It claims Father Rippinger "fails to affirm EENS" but the article seems to say he affirmed it.
Apparently, you didn’t read the whole article, Lionel.
The 15 points mentioned in my comment above all refer to hypothetical cases. Theoretical possibilities known only to God cannot be practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus of the Church Councils, which did not mention any exceptions.There are no practical exceptions for EENS. We cannot meet or see someone saved outside the Church, without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) in 1965-2024. So there are no exceptions for EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II or the Catechisms of the Catholic Church.
When the 15 points mentioned above or in Vatican Council II (LG 8,14,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc) are projected as exceptions for EENS, it is implied that they are visible and personally known people in the present times, saved outside the Church. This is irrational.There are no such visible cases for us human beings. Yet this is a common mistake made by the liberals, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Holy Office in 1949, traditionalists today and the sedevacantists.
Also if someone is saved outside the Catholic Church he cannot be visible in Heaven and on earth at the same time by us human beings .
So I think Fr. Chad Ripperger affirmed the dogma EENS and did not really mention any practical exceptions. Possibilities known only to God are not defacto exceptions for EENS in 2024.Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church can only be interpreted rationally. This is the ethical option. They both are traditional and support the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church, the ecclesiology of the Greek and Latin Mass.This was not known to Ratzinger, Rahner, Congar, Kung and even Lefebvre. There is also no comment on this subject i.e the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II in harmony with EENS, from Fr. Leonard Feeney.Neither is there a clarification on Vatican Council II from the St. Benedict Centers of today.
In the diocese of Worcester and Manchester, USA it is obligatory for the bishops and curia to only interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of Pope John Paul II, rationally in harmony with Feeneyite EENS, i.e the EENS of the Council of Florence etc, which did not mention exceptions.- Lionel
Anonimo
Apparently, you didn’t read the whole article, Lionel.
Lionel:
Yes I watched the video and took notes. I listed 'the exceptions' mentioned by the priest. I have made a list of 15 of Fr. Ripperger's obsesrvation. I then commented on each of them. My point was that none of the 15 observations are practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). Even if he added another 15 more there would no exceptions.
Since if a person is saved outside the Catholic Church it can only be known to God. This case would always be invisible for us human beings. But an invisible case, a hypothetical case, a theoretical case, cannot be an objective exception for EENS in 2024. So EENS is not contradicted by any of the excorcist's observation.
It was great when Ripperger affirmed the dogma EENS. The dogma EENS is not obsolete with Vatican Council II.Since LG 8,14,16 etc always refer to invisible cases for me. Also for you ?
This is a rational interpretation of Vatican Council II. It can be the only ethical option we have.- Lionel Andrades
Crackpots and crockpots
Dear Tancred,
Thank you for posting the above 15 points which I am unable to post on the website Catholicism.org since I remain banned out there.So this issue cannot be discussed there.
The important points are , with reference to Brother Andre Marie's article on Fr. Chad Ripperger is that:-
1. LG 8,14,16,UR 3,NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II and the 15 theoretical points mentioned in this video, are not practical exceptions for the dogma EENS. I think the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, agree with me here.However they have not commented on this point formally.
2. We know the dogma EENS which the excorcist has affirmed cannot have visible exceptions in 2024. Since if someone dies and is saved outside the Church it can only be known to God. So LG 8 etc cannot be a visible exception for the dogma EENS. The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston made an objective mistake. Invisible cases of the baptism of desire in 1949 could not be visible exceptions for the Council of Florence 1442, on EENS.
3.However the traditionalists and liberals continue to interpret LG 8,14,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being practical exceptions for the dogma EENS. In other words, these are physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church in the present times.This was how Cardinal Ratzinger would interpret Vatican Council II, which was a break with the understanding of EENS of the 16th century, for him.
This is how Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican interpreted Vatican Council II, i.e irrationally, confusing what is invisible as being visible and then accepting liberal conclusions- in the Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano case for schism.
Unfortunately this is also how the traditionalists interpret Vatican Council II and then reject the non traditional conclusion.
Since I interpret invisible cases as being only invisible, there are no practical exceptions in Vatican Council II, for the dogma EENS which Fr. Ripperger has affirmed in public. I will continue to interpret Vatican Council II, as such. This is the only rational option we have.
Why should we interpret Lumen Gentium 16, for example, as being a visible example of salvation outside the Church in 1965-2024 and so an explicit exception for the dogma EENS and the past exclusivisit ecclesiology of the Roman Missal ? This is unethical.Yet the St.Benedict Centers, both groups, have been interpreting Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma EENS, all these years. In other words, LG 8,16 etc, are visible exceptions for Tradition ( Athanasius Creed etc). Do not the SSPX make the same objective mistake, for you ? -Lionel Andrades
- Lionel Andrades
Nobody read your blog, and nobody reads your irrelevant comments either, Lionel.
Regarding Comments on a Blog: Rule # 1
Keep it brief. No one will read your endless musings.
FR.CHAD RIPPERGER AFFIRMS FEENEYITE EENS, ALL THE CATECHISMS AND VATICAN COUNCIL II
Fr.Chad Ripperger, Jesse Romero and Terry Barber in a video of Virgin Most Powerful Radio have affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), according to two Church Councils, which did not mention any exceptions - and neither did Fr. Ripperger mention any practical exceptions for the dogma EENS. The dogma EENS says outside the Catholic Church, the hierarchical Church, founded by Jesus Christ, there is no salvation ( from Hell).The three speakers are supported by Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson the former U.S Nuncio to Switzerland, Abbot Stefano Visintin osb, the former Rector of the University of St. Anselm Rome and the U.S apologist John Martignoni.
The baptism of desire (BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) are hypothetical cases and so do not contradict the dogma EENS indicated Brother Andre Marie micm, Prior of the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire, in an interview with Timothy S. Flanders, who then became the editor in chief, of the EWTN blog 1Peter 5. Flanders agreed.
There are no literal cases of the baptism of desire(BOD) said Bishop Athanasius Schneider when interviewed by Dr. Taylor Marshall. Marshall confirmed that there are no explicit cases of St. Thomas Aquinas’ implicit baptism of desire. So they were also saying that there are no explicit exceptions for EENS.
BOD and I.I refer to hypothetical cases only, said Sister Maria Philomena, the Director of the St. Augustine Institute of Wisdom, New Hampshire, and USA.
For me too, there are no exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. LG 8,14,15,16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, are not exceptions for the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Roman Missal of the Middle Ages. Vatican Council II is not a break with traditional Mission, based upon their being exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.This was Mission as it was known to the Jesuits in the 16th century.
With Vatican Council II saying all need faith and baptism for salvation (Ad Gentes 7) and LG 8, 14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, being hypothetical and so not objective exceptions in 1965-2024 for Ad Gentes 7 (and EENS), the Catholic Church is still saying today that all need to be Catholic to avoid Hell and so there is the need for the non separation of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church to save souls from going to Hell. Based upon Vatican Council II we need to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation, as it was done during the time of the Papal States in Europe and the Austro-Hungarian Catholic Empire.
In the video Fr. Chad Ripperger is affirming Feeneyite EENS which is the EENS of the ancient Church Councils which he quoted.He did not mention any objective exception. That LG 8 etc refers to only hypothetical cases in 2024 is common knowledge. Everyone agrees on this point. This is something obvious said Fr. Aldo Rossi, the former Prior of the Society of St.Pius X, Albano, Italy.
Fr.Chad Ripperger, the well known American exorcist, is affirming Feeneyite EENS, which is the EENS of the past Councils. He is affirming all the Catechisms (which no more contradict each other and themselves).He is affirming Vatican Council II, interpreted rationally i.e. by not confusing what is invisible as being visible.We now have unity in doctrine and theology. There is no break with Tradition.-Lionel Andrades
All Catholic religious before they make their traditional vow of obedience must decide if they will obediently intepret Vatican Council II rationally or irrationally, like me or Pope Francis and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican. It determines how we interpret and accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church only), the First Commandment ( there is true worship in only the Catholic Church and there are no known exceptions) and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Roman Missal.
The vow is made before God and they can no more interpret the hypothetical cases in Ad Gentes 7 (Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6)', as referring to a practical exception for the orthodox passages in AG 7 which syupport the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, of the three Church Councils which defined it i.e ( Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.).
If the hypothetical case of being saved in invincible ignorance, cited above, is marked in purple and the orthodox passage in AG 7, cited above, is underscored in blue, then we could say that 'the purple is not an exception for the blue'.
The passage in purple, which refers to those saved in invincible ignorance etc, refer to invisible cases in 2024. They do not exist in our reality. They are not objective examples of salvation for us human beings in 2023-2024. They refer always to implicit cases. They are not literally known people in the present times saved as such.
So a religious - a cardinal, bishop, priest or nun, has to choose. Will the purple be an exception for the blue or will it not be an exception.? How will they be obedient to their Superior ?
For me the purple is not an exception for the blue.
For Pope Francis, the DDF and for religious in general, the purple is an exception for the blue. Otherwise they wouldl be affirming Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), which is the EENS of the three Councils which did not mention any exceptions. It is also the EENS of the St.Benedict Centers and the Most Holy Family Monastery, NY, USA.
So the pope, cardinals, bishops and juridical persons, according to Canon Law have to choose if they are going to be traditional and rational or liberal and irrational. They can no more dishonestly interpret Vatican Council II, and the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms, dishonestly and then call it ' a development of doctrine' or 'the revolution of Vatican Council II'. They cannot make a voew to be dishonest.
If the purple is an exception for the blue for you, Tancred, after being infomed ( and assuming you understand all this) then you are dishonest. This is not being Catholic.- Lionel Andrades
CONTINUED
COINTINUED
It is obligatory for Fr. Chad Ripperger to affirm EENS ( which he has done in the video). It is obligatory for him to interpret the 15 points (mentioned in the first comment on this thread ) with the purple not being an exception for the blue.
He would also need to interpret the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston with the purple not being an exception for the blue. It would be the same with all the Catechisms.
It is then we can tell if a religious affirms EENS and Vatican Council II and the Catechism fo the Catholic Church ( only honestly) or really rejects it( by preojecting LG 8,14,16 etc) as being exceptions for EENS.
This was the issue I put forward to the Jesuits in the Department of Theology of Boston College. Someone did not like it. So Google has temporary suspended by Gmail account. My blog Eucharist and Mission still stands closed and all the input has been deleted.-Lionel Andrades
FOR BISHOP MICHAEL OLSEN THE PURPLE IS AN EXCEPTION FOR THE BLUE
Bishop Michael Olsen of the Diocese of Fort Worth, Texas has along with the Holy See suppressed a community of Carmelite nuns it is reported today, just as they suppressed the Fisher-More Catholic College.The bishop and the Holy See interpret Vatican Council II with the purple being an exception for the blue.So the result is liberalism. It is a break with the dogma EENS as held by St. Teresa of Avila. St. John of the Cross, Blessed Elizabeth of the Trinity, St. Teresa of Liseaux...
The text of the Decree of Supression states that the nuns no longer have the Catholic faith. They had also chosen to be associated with the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX).
They have now accepted their lay state, since there is no one to support their traditional doctrine based upon rational reasoning ( the purple is not an exception for the blue). You and the traditionalists (SSPX, FSSP etc) are of no help. Since for you the purple is an exception for the blue. This is the common error today like the Arian Heresy of past times.
Wake up Tancred ! Wake up!.
How long must I keep writing all this, before you understand ?
Yesterday was the feast of St.Francis Xavier who went to Goa, the Portughese colony, to baptise and preach there, since he believed that the natives would go to Hell if they do not accept Jesus in the Catholic Church.Did he also not have the Catholic faith for you ?
He interpreted the Creeds, Councils and Catechism with the purple not being an exception for the blue.
Before 1949 all Magisterial Documents ( Creeds , Councils, Catechisms etc) were interpreted with the purple not being an exception for the blue.
In Christ
Lionel
04.12.2024
Tancred,
This is part of the ' Letter from Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to Brother Andre Marie, Saint Benedict Center' .The full letter is available still on the website of the Diocese of Manchester, USA. I have quoted here, the relevant parts.
CONGREGAZIONE
PER LA DOTTRINA
DELLA FEDE
P ROT. N. 1732/66- 57466
00120 Cittii del Vaticano,
Palazzo del S. Uffizio
NOV 0 7 2016
October 20,2016
Dear Brother Andre Marie micm
...As the Congregation stated in our April 15 letter to you, which the Congregation also
shared with Bishop Libasci, the principle "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" must be interpreted according to the official doctrine of the Church, as it is summarized with clarity in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#846-#848) and, more in detail, in the Declaration Dominus Jesus (#20-#22). The Catechism of the Catholic Church emphasizes that all salvation comes from Christ through the Church, which is the Body of Christ, the Sacrament of Salvation (cf. CCC #846). The paragraph that follows, however, is equally binding, as it considers those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church and states that those too have the possibility of obtaining eternal salvation (cf. CCC #847). This being stated, the Church certainly has a perennial obligation and sacred right to evangelize all men (cf. CCC #848).
https://www.catholicnh.org/assets/Documents/About/FAQ/Ltr-CDF-SBC.pdf
Lionel:
This Letter can be read on the website of the Diocese of Manchester in New Hampshire, USA. The CDF is asking the St.Benedict Center to interpret invisible cases of CCC 847-848 as being visible exceptions for CCC 846( Outside the Church there is no salvation). This is an irrational interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The CDF is saying that 'the pruple is an exception for the blue'.
For me CCC 847-848 refers to physically invisible cases in 2024. So they do not cotradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and neither CCC 845-846.
This is an objective and public error of the CDF, Vatican.
A similar error was made in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston.
It was repeated in 1965 when this 1949 LOHO was referenced in Vatican Council II ( Lumen Gentium 16) and later in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) implying that Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) was an objective exception for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the Catechism of Pope Pius X( 24Q,27Q Outside the Church no Salvation) etc.
When this Letter was issued and the Precept of Prohibitions placed upon the St. Benedict Center there were no protests from the liberals or traditionalists. Since they were all interpreting Vatican Council II and the Catechisms, with 'the purple being an exception for the blue'.- Lionel Andrades
DOES THE ST. BENEDICT CENTER CONSIDER THE DICASTERY FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II, WITH A LIBERAL CONCLUSION, MAGISTERIAL ?
Is Vatican Council II interpreted with the irrational premise magisterial for Brother Andre Marie micm and the St. Benedict Center ? For the Diocese of Manchester in New Hampshire, USA, Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) is a practical exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). In other words Lumen Gentium 16 refers to a physically visible non Catholic saved outside the Church. It refers to someone personally known who is saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water. An invisible person cannot be an objective exception for the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed.
For me LG 8,14,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to physically invisble cases in 2024. So there is nothing in the Council-text to contradict the dogma EENS as held by the St. Benedict Cener.
So why should I interpret Vatican Council II irrationally like the Diocese of Manchester and Pope Franics ?
The Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake. This interpretation of 'the Church' cannot be Magisterial, cardinals and bishops interpret the Council by confusing invisible cases as being visible, i.e 'the purple is an exception for the blue'.
Brother Andre Marie micm needs to clarify his Doctrinal Statement (with which I generally agree) when he states that he accepts Vatican Council II as it held by the Church. Perhaps he was only saying that as a traditionalist he accepts Vatican Council II-period, unlike the SSPX and the sedevacantists.
However when he interprets LG 8,14,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being physically invisible cases, as he suggested in an interview with the editor in chief of the blog 1Peter5 then his interpretation and conclusion is not the same as Pope Francis.
The interpretation of Pope Francis , the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and Bishop Peter Libasci, the bisbhop of Manchester in New Hampshire, is irrational. It is non traditional. It is schism with the Magisterium of the 16 th century which had no exceptions for EENS. It is unethical. The liberal conclusion is not the Catholic faith. The liberalism created by confusing what is invisble as being visible and then producing a heretical conclusion is not ' a developent of doctrine'. It is dishonesty.
It is only when Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally does it become magisterial .It is then in harmony with , for example, the missionaries of the 16th century.
So does the St. Benedict Center NH consider the Vatican interpretation of Vatican Council II, Magisterial ? Should not the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith continue to affirm Vatican Council II, but interpret LG 8,14,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being invisble cases in 2024 ?- Lionel Andrades
That’s crazy story.
WITH VATICAN COUNCIL II INTERPRETED RATIONALLY AND SO TRADITIONALLY AND MAGISTERIALLY WOULD COFFIN AND CIONICI CONTINUE TO OPPOSE POPE FRANCIS ?
Patrick Coffin is in Rome and Andrea Cionici who also does not think Pope Francis is the pope has produced a video of their discussion. Pope Francis’ liberalism comes from Vatican Council II, interpreted irrationally.He has never denied it. With LG 8,14,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II being practical exceptions for Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). The Athanasius Creed and the rest of Tradition has also been made obsolete. Coffin and Cionici agree. The liberalism and innovation in faith, morals and mission in the Church, comes with Vatican Council II. So the pope and the conservatives and traditionalists agree that Vatican Council II is responsible for the liberalism in the Church.I repeat.
Now think, Tancred.
What if Vatican Council II is traditional? What if it supports the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. Then there can be no innovation in the name of the Council. The Council has the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition. In other words LG 8, 14, 16 etc are not exceptions for EENS etc.
So we will have Pope Francis and the cardinals and bishops before a traditional Vatican Council II.
Before them the Council will support the ecclesiology of the Traditional Latin Mass of the 16th century, for example. It means there now, once again in the Catholic Church, there is only one ecclesiology. It is based upon Vatican Council II, and this would now also have to be the ecclesiology of the Novus Ordo Mass and Mass in all Rites.
The Church is traditional once again according to doctrine and theology.
What will be Pope Francis’ reaction?
He cannot continue to interpret Vatican Council II dishonestly. He cannot force an objective mistake on the Church. The people will be informed.
So what if Pope Francis accepts Vatican Council II, rational and traditional ? This would be Magisterial.
He will be opposed by the Masons.He will have to be a traditional pope like Pius X, since he will be limited and restricted by Vatican Council II.
If there are about 10 cardinals who will choose to interpret Vatican Council II, rationally, how can they be accused of being in schism? Since they are affirming the Council and the Catechisms and are interpreting all Magisterial Documents (Creeds, Councils, and Catechisms) rationally and traditionally.
It would expose the present 2024 interpretation of Vatican Council II, which is unethical and not Catholic. It cannot be Magisterial.
In such a scenario why would Coffin and Cionici have to continue to oppose Pope Francis? It would mean that the Tradition of Archbishop Carlo Vigano in 2024 is traditional while Cardinal Fernandes will be in public heresy and schism.-Lionel Andrades
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd0Pco0kcrk
From the website Catholicism.org
Bishop Schneider: The Interpretation of Vatican II and the Current Crisis of the Church
https://catholicism.org/bishop-schneider-interpretation-vatican-ii-current-crisis-church.html
Bishop Athanasius Schneider told Dr.Taylor Marshall in an interview, that there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire (LG 14). Yet he interprets LG 14 etc as a break with Tradition. In other words there are known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church, without faith and baptism, who are practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So for the bishop EENS as it was known to the Church Councils is obsolete.
So the Athanasius Creed etc have exceptions for Bishop Schneider. It is the same for the liberals. Everyone does not need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation, for him, since the Council suggests there are objective exceptions.
If he chose to interpret LG 14 etc rationally, i.e as being only hypothetical cases, invisible in 2024, with the 'purple not being an exception for the blue', - then he would be telling Pope Francis and the whole Church, that their interpretation of Vatican Council II is irrational, dishonest and not Magisterial.
Instead, after this interview with Taylor Marshall, Bishop Schneider continued to interpret LG 14 etc as a break with the dogma EENS and so remained politically correct with the Masons and Pope Francis. He was not reduced to the lay state.
The result is that Pope Francis still supports his liberalism with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally and there is no one to correct his version of the Council. Even the Doctrinal Statement of the St.Benedict Center NH on this point is ambigous.
Think. If there are 10 bishops who will interpret Vatican Council II rationally, they would be affirming Tradition and not rejecting the Council. They could not be accused of being in schism. They are not rejecting any Church Document, interpreted rationally, and yet they would be opposing Pope Francis.
The difference would be : Pope Francis would be accepting Vatican Council II and interpreting it irrationally and they would also be accepting Vatican Council II but interpreting it rationally.So their conclusion would be traditional and exclusivist.
There would be no need to say that Pope Francis is not the pope and that there was the need to choose sedevacantism. The pope simply would have to be asked to accept Vatican Council II interpreted rationally .He would then have to be traditional. -Lionel Andrades
Tancred,
The bottom line is that LG 8,14,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to hypohetical cases only. They refer to invisible people in 2024 for me. So they are not exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed or the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal of the 16th century.Everyone generally agrees with me on this point. It is common sense.
For Pope Francis and the rest of the Catholic Church LG 8,14,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (845,846,1257) etc. So he implies that LG 8 etc refer to objective people in 2024 saved outside the Church. They would have to be visible and known people saved outside the Church, for them to be practical exceptions for EENS. People who do not exist in our reality cannot make EENS and the rest of Tradition obsolete.
But we know that we cannot meet or see somoene saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. So there really cannot be practical exceptions for EENS.
_________________
Now if Pope Francis and the College of Cardinals were to interpret Vatican Council II like me, the Council would support Tradition. It would be Magisterial to intrepret the Council rationally like me in harmony with the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Roman Missal.It will then be the liberals who will be in schism and heresy.
The real issue now in the Doctrinal Statement of the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire is not EENS but Vatican Council II. Does Brother Andre Marie micm interpret Vatican Council II like me or like Pope Francis and the Diocese of Manchester,NH.-Lionel Andrades
"Limited papal infallibility" is not what was ever taught or affirmed by the Church. The debate at the First Vatican Council and questioning by Cdl John B. Purcell (Cincinnati) makes evident the fathers believed that the pope cannot err on faith and morals except in private communication, but not when he is being papal.
You can read the entire debate in the book The Life and Life's Work of Pope Leo XIII.
PHYSICALLY VISIBLE
1.Whatever is your concept of 'limited or full papal infallibility', the bottom line is that IF LG 8,14,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible examples of salvation of non Catholics outside the Catholic Church in 1965-2024 then Vatican Council II has practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), defined by three Church Councils ( Council of Florence 1442 etc).
PHYSICALLY INVISIBLE
2. IF LG 8,14,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to physically invisible cases in 1965-2024 then they are not explicit examples of salvation, of non Catholics in the present times. So they are not objective exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Catechisms. This is when the Catechisms say outside the Church there is no salvation.
The pope does not err on faith and morals, in the extraordinary Magisterium and when he is in harmony with Tradition but he has to choose between n.1 or 2 above.
Pope Francis is interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally. He has chosen n.1
Pope Benedict interpreted the Creeds and Catechisms too with n.1. He confused what is physically invisble as being invisible.
Pope John Paul II accepted the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office. It made the mistake in n.1
Pope Paul VI interpreted Vatican Council II with the mistake in n.1.
In the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston invisble cases of the baptism of desire were assumed to be literal and known cases and so visible and objective exceptions for the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS, the EENS of the Church Councils which did not mention any exceptions.So the 1949 Letter says not everyone needs to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation ( contradicting EENS, the Athanasius Creed etc).It projects hypothetical and invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved invincible ignorance as being objective exceptions for the past exclusivist ecclesiology.Imaginary cases are projected as being objective exceptions for EENS, making the Athanasius Creed etc obsolete. This is schism with the Magisterium of for example the 16th century. It is also first class heresy when the meaning of the Creeds are changed and the dogma EENS rejected outright.
So the popes from Pius XII to Francis have interpreted the baptism of desire etc irrationally confusing what is invisible as being visible. The popes from Paul VI to Francis have interpreted LG 8,14,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc irrationally, confusing what is invisible as being visible exceptions for the dogma EENS etc. The result is liberaloism.There is a non-traditional conclusion. Then it is said that if Vatican Council II can change faith , producing exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Creeds and Catechisms then this is the work of the Holy Spirit. So faith and morals are open to change for them.
So Amoris Laetitia is the end result of liberalism. Vatican Council II, irrationally is the real primary cause for the liberalism.
Now over the last 15 years we have learnt that this is deception. Vatican Council II when interpreted rationally does not have any practical exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed or the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( 845, 846, 1257).With Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation) the Council is traditional.
So when Pope Francis and the cardinals and bishops choose to interpret Vatican Council II rationally , in future, they will take the Church back to Tradition. They have no other choice. Since Vatican Council II is really traditional. This is the ethical option. - Lionel Andrades
-Lionel Andrades
From the website Catholicism.org of the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire
‘Implicit Faith in Christ’ Does Not Suffice for Justification
DEC 10, 2024 BROTHER ANDRÉ MARIE
Father Thomas Crean, O.P., Dr. Alan Fimister, and Dr. John Joy have authored a twenty-five-page scholarly article, written in the scholastic format, in the pages of the theological journal, Divinitas. Called “Can a Person Be Justified by ‘Implicit Faith in Christ’?,” the article is available for purchase as a download from the Divinitas website..
…The Divinitas authors acknowledge that they are disagreeing with many theologians, including influential ones (on which more later)…
LIONEL: Liberal theologians whom they disagree with cite Vatican Council II, for the break with Tradition. Of course they mean only Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally; confusing what is physically invisible as being physically visible. So the result is non-traditional and liberal.
_______________
…When considering the notion of the development of doctrine, it is the unstated assumption of many theologians — those of the more “progressive” sort — that development moves only in one direction, that of an ever broader, more latitudinarian, or liberal understanding…
LIONEL: Yes and it is based only upon Vatican Council II irrational and not rational. So Lumen Gentium 16 for example, refers to ‘known salvation’ outside the Catholic Church in personal cases, objectively known non Catholics, in 1965-2024. When Vatican Council II is rational (invisible cases are invisible) there is no ‘development’. The theologian is restricted by Vatican Council II, to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. The liberal theologian would have to say that explicit faith in Jesus in the Catholic Church is the only means of salvation.He can no more cite Vatican Council II to justify his liberalism.
_______________________________
..Back to the Jesuits: the article quotes Father Francis Sullivan, S.J., forthrightly stating in his own book that this novel position on the sufficiency of implicit faith in Christ — which he himself advocated — “was a departure from the teaching of St. Thomas and the whole mediaeval tradition, which had required explicit Christian faith for the salvation of everyone in the Christian era…
LIONEL: I was in communication with Fr. Francis Sullivan when he was an emeritus professor of theology at Boston College. He cited Vatican Council II for the break with Tradition. Of course, he was only referring to Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally.
_____________________________
(See “Doctrinal Summary” on this site for further arguments from authority on the necessity of explicit faith.)
LIONEL. In this Doctrinal Summary (by Brother Thomas Mary Sennett micm, MAR 16, 2005) there is no reference to Vatican Council II, irrational and rational. Vatican Council II in 2005 was being interpreted irrationally by all the communities of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St. Benedict Centers in the USA. It seems as if Vatican Council II rational, with LG 8,14,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, referring to only hypothetical cases, invisible people in our human reality, was not known to Fr. Leonard Feeney, Catherine Goddard Clarke and Brother Francis Maluf micm.Neither was it known to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops whom he consecrated.It is not known to traditionalists who go only for the Latin Mass.
__________________________________
Please do yourself a favor and invest the $4.28 it costs to get this 25-page article. Anyone who craves a deeper, more theological study of the question should have it.
LIONEL: Father Thomas Crean, O.P., Dr. Alan Fimister, and Dr. John Joy did not mention how the liberal theologians based their liberalism and break with Tradition, upon Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. They also did not mention how Vatican Council II interpreted rationally would support their thesis in this article. –Lionel Andrades
https://catholicism.org/doctrinalsummary.html#1.%20The%20Necessity%20of%20the%20Faith
Post a Comment