Irish Catholic Seminary in Rome : Irrational Philosophy and Theology. NOVEMBER 3, 2016 Irrational premises and conclusions: there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II IRRATIONAL PREMISES …More
Irish Catholic Seminary in Rome : Irrational Philosophy and Theology.
NOVEMBER 3, 2016
Irrational premises and conclusions: there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II
IRRATIONAL PREMISES
The irrational premise is that invisible things or persons are visible.
The irrational premise is that hypothetical cases are objectively visible in 2016.
The irrational premise is that the baptism of desire refers to personally known cases in 2016.
The irrational premise is assuming there are objectively seen and known cases of being saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water in 2016.
The irrational premise is assuming others could see invisible cases in the present and the past.It was assuming that the baptism of desire refers to a known case in the past.
_______________________________________
IRRATIONAL CONCLUSIONS
So every one does not need to be incorporated into the Catholic Church in 2016 since there are exceptions.There are known people saved without the baptism of water.
So every Protestant does not need to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation because there are known cases in 2016 for Protestants saved 'in imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3).
The Catholic Church has rejected Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus since there are known cases in 2016 of persons saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.
Pope Benedict XVI said that extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries since there is a development with Vatican Council II, LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to known cases in 2016 and so they are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Archbishop Augustine di Noia told Edward Pentin that not every one needs to enter the Church since Vatican Council II (LG 8) says there are 'elements of sanctification and truth' in other religions.So it is implied that LG 8 refers to known cases of persons saved without the baptism of water, which are exceptions to all needing to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.
Since invisible cases are visible in the present times and there are visible cases of the baptism of desire etc every one does not need to be a formal member of the Church, with faith and baptism, as was taught by Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
________________________________________
Now let us see the irrational and rational conclusions side by side.
IRRATIONAL PREMISES
The irrational premise is that invisible things or persons are visible.The irrational premise is that hypothetical cases are objectively visible in 2016.The irrational premise is that the baptism of desire refers to personally known cases in 2016.The irrational premise is assuming there are objectively seen and known cases of being saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water in 2016.The irrational premise is assuming others could see invisible cases in the present and the past.It was assuming that the baptism of desire refers to a known case in the past._______________________________________
CONCLUSIONSIRRATIONAL CONCLUSION:So every one does not need to be incorporated into the Catholic Church in 2016 since there are exceptions.There are known people saved without the baptism of water.RATIONAL CONCLUSION:So every one does need to be incorporated into the Catholic Church in 2016 since there are no exceptions.There are no known cases of people saved without the baptism of water.___________________________________
IRRATIONAL CONCLUSIONSo every Protestant does not need to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation because there are known cases in 2016 for Protestants saved 'in imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3).RATIONAL CONCLUSIONSo every Protestant does need to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation as taught by the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus because there are known cases in 2016 of Protestants saved 'in imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3).___________________________________
IRRATIONAL CONCLUSIONThe Catholic Church has rejected Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salussince there are known cases in 2016 of persons saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.RATIONAL CONCLUSIONThe Catholic Church has not rejected Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salussince there are no known cases in 2016 of persons saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.There are no visible exceptions._________________________________
IRRATIONAL CONCLUSIONPope Benedict XVI said that extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries since there is a development with Vatican Council II, LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to known cases in 2016 and so they are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
RATIONAL CONCLUSION
Pope Benedict XVI said that extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries since there is a development with Vatican Council II, LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to known cases in 2016 and so they are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The pope was wrong. Since there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2016.____________________________________
IRRATIONAL CONCLUSIONArchbishop Augustine di Noia told Edward Pentin that not every one needs to enter the Church since Vatican Council II (LG 8) says there are 'elements of sanctification and truth' in other religions.So it is implied that LG 8 refers to known cases of persons saved without the baptism of water, which are exceptions to all needing to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.
RATIONAL CONCLUSION
Archbishop Augustine di Noia told Edward Pentin that not every one needs to enter the Church since Vatican Council II (LG 8) says there are 'elements of sanctification and truth' in other religions.So it is implied that LG 8 refers to known cases of persons saved without the baptism of water, which are exceptions to all needing to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.He was wrong. There are no known cases in 2016 of person saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth'.So there are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Vatican Council II (LG 8).
________________________________
IRRATIONAL CONCLUSION
Since invisible cases are visible in the present times and there are visible cases of the baptism of desire etc every one does not need to be a formal member of the Church, with faith and baptism, as was taught by Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
RATIONAL CONCLUSION
Since invisible cases are NOT visible in the present times and there are NO visible cases of the baptism of desire etc every one does need to be a formal member of the Church, with faith and baptism, as was taught by Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
When an irrational premise is used I refer to it as Cushingism.
When there is a rational premise, I refer to it as Feeneyism.
For Cardinal Ratzinger the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries. He said this in the daily Avvenire.
So for him there are exceptions.
This is Cushingism.
In the theological paper of the International Theological Commission on 'Christianity and the World Religions' he says Pope Pius XII corrected the error of Fr.Leonard Feeney on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So for the ITC there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So this is Cushingism.
Do you think that since they were using CushingismVatican Council II was a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? There was known salvation outside the Church. Since there was known salvation outside the Church there are exceptions to an ecumenism of return, the need for the Social Reign of Christ the King and the need for all non Christians to formally convert into the Catholic Church.
Do you think that if they used Feeneyism as a philosophical reasoning and theology Vatican Council II would not be a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?. There was no known salvation outside the Church. Since there was no known salvation outside the Church there are no known exceptions to an ecumenism of return, the need to teach the Social Reign of Christ the King and the need for all non Christians to formally convert into the Catholic Church.
If all of them would accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted by Fr. Leonard Feeney then Vatican Council II would pastorally be in harmony with Tradition ?
1.Fr.Leonard Feeney said that there were no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
2.For him there were no exceptions of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.
3.For him hypothetical cases could not be objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the present times.This is something objective and factual.Example, people now in Heaven allegedly saved without the baptism of water are hypothetical cases for us. So they cannot be known exceptions on earth in the present times to the dogmatic teaching on needing to enter the Church as members.
4.Similarly if someone died allegedly without the baptism of desire in the past centuries, cannot be a known exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2016.
This is Feeneyism for me.
So with Feeneyism:
1.There are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since humanly speaking there cannot be an exception. We cannot know someone who will be saved or has been saved without the baptism of water.This is something known only to God.
2.There are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus mentioned in Vatican Council II.There cannot be any physically or personally known.
3.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance mentioned in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) is not a known exception…
NOVEMBER 3, 2016
Irrational premises and conclusions: there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II
IRRATIONAL PREMISES
The irrational premise is that invisible things or persons are visible.
The irrational premise is that hypothetical cases are objectively visible in 2016.
The irrational premise is that the baptism of desire refers to personally known cases in 2016.
The irrational premise is assuming there are objectively seen and known cases of being saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water in 2016.
The irrational premise is assuming others could see invisible cases in the present and the past.It was assuming that the baptism of desire refers to a known case in the past.
_______________________________________
IRRATIONAL CONCLUSIONS
So every one does not need to be incorporated into the Catholic Church in 2016 since there are exceptions.There are known people saved without the baptism of water.
So every Protestant does not need to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation because there are known cases in 2016 for Protestants saved 'in imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3).
The Catholic Church has rejected Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus since there are known cases in 2016 of persons saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.
Pope Benedict XVI said that extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries since there is a development with Vatican Council II, LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to known cases in 2016 and so they are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Archbishop Augustine di Noia told Edward Pentin that not every one needs to enter the Church since Vatican Council II (LG 8) says there are 'elements of sanctification and truth' in other religions.So it is implied that LG 8 refers to known cases of persons saved without the baptism of water, which are exceptions to all needing to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.
Since invisible cases are visible in the present times and there are visible cases of the baptism of desire etc every one does not need to be a formal member of the Church, with faith and baptism, as was taught by Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
________________________________________
Now let us see the irrational and rational conclusions side by side.
IRRATIONAL PREMISES
The irrational premise is that invisible things or persons are visible.The irrational premise is that hypothetical cases are objectively visible in 2016.The irrational premise is that the baptism of desire refers to personally known cases in 2016.The irrational premise is assuming there are objectively seen and known cases of being saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water in 2016.The irrational premise is assuming others could see invisible cases in the present and the past.It was assuming that the baptism of desire refers to a known case in the past._______________________________________
CONCLUSIONSIRRATIONAL CONCLUSION:So every one does not need to be incorporated into the Catholic Church in 2016 since there are exceptions.There are known people saved without the baptism of water.RATIONAL CONCLUSION:So every one does need to be incorporated into the Catholic Church in 2016 since there are no exceptions.There are no known cases of people saved without the baptism of water.___________________________________
IRRATIONAL CONCLUSIONSo every Protestant does not need to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation because there are known cases in 2016 for Protestants saved 'in imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3).RATIONAL CONCLUSIONSo every Protestant does need to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation as taught by the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus because there are known cases in 2016 of Protestants saved 'in imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3).___________________________________
IRRATIONAL CONCLUSIONThe Catholic Church has rejected Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salussince there are known cases in 2016 of persons saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.RATIONAL CONCLUSIONThe Catholic Church has not rejected Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salussince there are no known cases in 2016 of persons saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.There are no visible exceptions._________________________________
IRRATIONAL CONCLUSIONPope Benedict XVI said that extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries since there is a development with Vatican Council II, LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to known cases in 2016 and so they are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
RATIONAL CONCLUSION
Pope Benedict XVI said that extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries since there is a development with Vatican Council II, LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to known cases in 2016 and so they are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The pope was wrong. Since there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2016.____________________________________
IRRATIONAL CONCLUSIONArchbishop Augustine di Noia told Edward Pentin that not every one needs to enter the Church since Vatican Council II (LG 8) says there are 'elements of sanctification and truth' in other religions.So it is implied that LG 8 refers to known cases of persons saved without the baptism of water, which are exceptions to all needing to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.
RATIONAL CONCLUSION
Archbishop Augustine di Noia told Edward Pentin that not every one needs to enter the Church since Vatican Council II (LG 8) says there are 'elements of sanctification and truth' in other religions.So it is implied that LG 8 refers to known cases of persons saved without the baptism of water, which are exceptions to all needing to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.He was wrong. There are no known cases in 2016 of person saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth'.So there are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Vatican Council II (LG 8).
________________________________
IRRATIONAL CONCLUSION
Since invisible cases are visible in the present times and there are visible cases of the baptism of desire etc every one does not need to be a formal member of the Church, with faith and baptism, as was taught by Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
RATIONAL CONCLUSION
Since invisible cases are NOT visible in the present times and there are NO visible cases of the baptism of desire etc every one does need to be a formal member of the Church, with faith and baptism, as was taught by Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
When an irrational premise is used I refer to it as Cushingism.
When there is a rational premise, I refer to it as Feeneyism.
For Cardinal Ratzinger the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries. He said this in the daily Avvenire.
So for him there are exceptions.
This is Cushingism.
In the theological paper of the International Theological Commission on 'Christianity and the World Religions' he says Pope Pius XII corrected the error of Fr.Leonard Feeney on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So for the ITC there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So this is Cushingism.
Do you think that since they were using CushingismVatican Council II was a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? There was known salvation outside the Church. Since there was known salvation outside the Church there are exceptions to an ecumenism of return, the need for the Social Reign of Christ the King and the need for all non Christians to formally convert into the Catholic Church.
Do you think that if they used Feeneyism as a philosophical reasoning and theology Vatican Council II would not be a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?. There was no known salvation outside the Church. Since there was no known salvation outside the Church there are no known exceptions to an ecumenism of return, the need to teach the Social Reign of Christ the King and the need for all non Christians to formally convert into the Catholic Church.
If all of them would accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted by Fr. Leonard Feeney then Vatican Council II would pastorally be in harmony with Tradition ?
1.Fr.Leonard Feeney said that there were no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
2.For him there were no exceptions of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.
3.For him hypothetical cases could not be objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the present times.This is something objective and factual.Example, people now in Heaven allegedly saved without the baptism of water are hypothetical cases for us. So they cannot be known exceptions on earth in the present times to the dogmatic teaching on needing to enter the Church as members.
4.Similarly if someone died allegedly without the baptism of desire in the past centuries, cannot be a known exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2016.
This is Feeneyism for me.
So with Feeneyism:
1.There are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since humanly speaking there cannot be an exception. We cannot know someone who will be saved or has been saved without the baptism of water.This is something known only to God.
2.There are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus mentioned in Vatican Council II.There cannot be any physically or personally known.
3.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance mentioned in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) is not a known exception…