3
4
1
2
Pope Benedict reconciling the Church and the World. Bishop Williamson comment: ELEISON COMMENTS CCVIII (July 9, 2011) : BENEDICT'S THINKING I The "Eleison Comments" of June 18 promised a series of …More
Pope Benedict reconciling the Church and the World.
Bishop Williamson comment:
ELEISON COMMENTS CCVIII (July 9, 2011) : BENEDICT'S THINKING I
The "Eleison Comments" of June 18 promised a series of four numbers which would show how "disoriented" is Pope Benedict XVI's "way of believing". They present in fact a summary of the precious tract on his thinking written a few years ago by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, one of the four bishops of the Society of St Pius X. The Bishop's tract, The Faith Imperilled by Reason, he calls "unpretentious", but it does lay bare the Pope's fundamental problem - how to believe in the Catholic Faith in such a way as not to exclude the values of the modern world. The tract shows that such a way of believing is necessarily disoriented, even if the Pope does still in some way believe.
It divides into four parts. After an important Introduction to Benedict XVI's "Hermeneutic of Continuity", Bishop Tissier looks briefly at the philosophical and theological roots of the Pope's thinking. Thirdly he lays out its fruits for the Gospel, for dogma, for the Church and society, for the Kingship of Christ and for the Last Things. He concludes with a measured judgment upon the Pope's Newfaith, highly critical but wholly respectful. Let us start with an overview of the Introduction:--
The basic problem for Benedict XVI, as for all of us, is the clash between the Catholic Faith and the modern world. For instance he sees that modern science is amoral, that modern society is secular and modern culture is multi-religious. He specifies the clash as being between Faith and Reason, between the Faith of the Church, and Reason as worked out by the 18th century Enlightenment. However, he is convinced that they can and must both be interpreted in such a way as to bring them into harmony with one another. Hence his close participation in Vatican II, a Council which attempted to reconcile the Faith with today's world. But Traditionalists say that the Council failed, because its very principles are irreconcilable with the Faith. Hence Pope Benedict's "Hermeneutic of Continuity", or system of interpretation to show that there is no rupture between Catholic Tradition and Vatican II.
The principles for Benedict's "hermeneutic" go back to a German historian of the 19th century, Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911). Dilthey maintained that as truths arise in history, so they can only be understood in their history, and human truths cannot be understood without the involvement of the human subject in that history. So to continue the core of past truths into the present, one needs to subtract all elements belonging to the past, now irrelevant, and replace them with elements important for the living present. Benedict applies to the Church this double process of purification and enrichment. On the one hand Reason must purify the Faith of its errors from the past, e.g. its absolutism, while on the other hand the Faith must get Reason to moderate its attacks on religion and to remember that its humanist values, liberty, equality and fraternity, all originated in the Church.
The great error here of the Pope is that the truths of the Catholic Faith on which Christian civilization was built and on which its feeble remains still rest, have their origin by no means in human history, but in the eternal bosom of the unchanging God. They are eternal truths, from eternity, for eternity. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away" says Our Lord, (MtXXIV,35). Neither Dilthey nor, apparently, Benedict XVI can conceive of truths far above human history and above all its conditioning. If the Pope thinks that by making such concessions to faithless Reason, he will draw its adherents towards the Faith, let him think again. They merely despise Faith the more !
Next, the philosophical and theological roots of Benedict's thinking.
Kyrie eleison.
1 John 2:15
Love not the world, nor the things which are in the world. If any man love the world, the charity of the Father is not in him.
James 4:4
Adulterers, know you not that the friendship of this world is the enemy of God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world, becometh an enemy of God.
Bishop Williamson comment:
ELEISON COMMENTS CCVIII (July 9, 2011) : BENEDICT'S THINKING I
The "Eleison Comments" of June 18 promised a series of four numbers which would show how "disoriented" is Pope Benedict XVI's "way of believing". They present in fact a summary of the precious tract on his thinking written a few years ago by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, one of the four bishops of the Society of St Pius X. The Bishop's tract, The Faith Imperilled by Reason, he calls "unpretentious", but it does lay bare the Pope's fundamental problem - how to believe in the Catholic Faith in such a way as not to exclude the values of the modern world. The tract shows that such a way of believing is necessarily disoriented, even if the Pope does still in some way believe.
It divides into four parts. After an important Introduction to Benedict XVI's "Hermeneutic of Continuity", Bishop Tissier looks briefly at the philosophical and theological roots of the Pope's thinking. Thirdly he lays out its fruits for the Gospel, for dogma, for the Church and society, for the Kingship of Christ and for the Last Things. He concludes with a measured judgment upon the Pope's Newfaith, highly critical but wholly respectful. Let us start with an overview of the Introduction:--
The basic problem for Benedict XVI, as for all of us, is the clash between the Catholic Faith and the modern world. For instance he sees that modern science is amoral, that modern society is secular and modern culture is multi-religious. He specifies the clash as being between Faith and Reason, between the Faith of the Church, and Reason as worked out by the 18th century Enlightenment. However, he is convinced that they can and must both be interpreted in such a way as to bring them into harmony with one another. Hence his close participation in Vatican II, a Council which attempted to reconcile the Faith with today's world. But Traditionalists say that the Council failed, because its very principles are irreconcilable with the Faith. Hence Pope Benedict's "Hermeneutic of Continuity", or system of interpretation to show that there is no rupture between Catholic Tradition and Vatican II.
The principles for Benedict's "hermeneutic" go back to a German historian of the 19th century, Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911). Dilthey maintained that as truths arise in history, so they can only be understood in their history, and human truths cannot be understood without the involvement of the human subject in that history. So to continue the core of past truths into the present, one needs to subtract all elements belonging to the past, now irrelevant, and replace them with elements important for the living present. Benedict applies to the Church this double process of purification and enrichment. On the one hand Reason must purify the Faith of its errors from the past, e.g. its absolutism, while on the other hand the Faith must get Reason to moderate its attacks on religion and to remember that its humanist values, liberty, equality and fraternity, all originated in the Church.
The great error here of the Pope is that the truths of the Catholic Faith on which Christian civilization was built and on which its feeble remains still rest, have their origin by no means in human history, but in the eternal bosom of the unchanging God. They are eternal truths, from eternity, for eternity. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away" says Our Lord, (MtXXIV,35). Neither Dilthey nor, apparently, Benedict XVI can conceive of truths far above human history and above all its conditioning. If the Pope thinks that by making such concessions to faithless Reason, he will draw its adherents towards the Faith, let him think again. They merely despise Faith the more !
Next, the philosophical and theological roots of Benedict's thinking.
Kyrie eleison.
1 John 2:15
Love not the world, nor the things which are in the world. If any man love the world, the charity of the Father is not in him.
James 4:4
Adulterers, know you not that the friendship of this world is the enemy of God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world, becometh an enemy of God.
Lionel Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Thursday, November 17, 2011
SSPX IMPLY BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS VISIBLE, THEN THEY ASSUME IT’S AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION: OFFER LATIN MASS WITH NOVUS ORDO ECCLESIOLOGY
The Society of St. Pius X needs to announce that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma and that everyone with no exception needs to convert into the Church for salvation.Otherwise …More
Thursday, November 17, 2011
SSPX IMPLY BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS VISIBLE, THEN THEY ASSUME IT’S AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION: OFFER LATIN MASS WITH NOVUS ORDO ECCLESIOLOGY
The Society of St. Pius X needs to announce that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma and that everyone with no exception needs to convert into the Church for salvation.Otherwise it is an impediment for saying the Latin Mass. It is the actual rejection of a dogma which Pope Pius XII called an ‘infallible statement’. SSPX must recognize that it is an impediment for offering Holy Mass according to Canon Law.
Similar to the SSPX, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), former SSPX members, are rejecting the dogma and Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7) which says all need to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. For the FSSP all in the present time need to enter the Church except for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.
I do not know if the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican will consider the SSPX and FSSP error an impediment to offering Mass since the Paulist Fathers at the Church of Santa Susanna in Rome reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They claim Vatican Council II has changed this teaching and they provide a theology of religions on their website. They offer Mass in English, ordain their priests and the Vatican gives them canonical status.There are no demands made on them by the Vatican as is the case for the SSPX.
Fr. Peter Scott writes on the SSPX website that unlike the modernists they believe in the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Yes- as compared to the Paulist Fathers in Rome. However there are priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass who say they respect the dogma however those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma. Sounds familiar?
Fr. Peter Scott criticizes the modernist ecclesiology in a letter to Bishop Raymond Boland, of the diocese of Kansas City, USA. Yet the SSPX is using the same ecclesiology as the priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass. If the SSPX priests assume that the baptism of desire contradicts the dogma then they also imply that the baptism of desire is visible for us and is as explicit as the baptism of water.I do not like to write all this since in many ways I admire the SSPX but it is unfortunate that they are using the same ecclesiology as in the Novus Ordo Mass.
Fr. Peter Scott and Fr. Francois Laisney of the SSPX assume in written reports on their website, and in a book by Fr. Laisney, that the baptism of desire is visible and explicit and so is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The SSPX needs to issue a clarification on this subject-Lionel Andrades
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/sspx-imply-bapt…
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Fr.Francois Laisney of the SSPX's denial is probably not willful but due to confusion between defacto-dejure salvation, implicit and explicit salvation.
I have been asked by a reader of this blog where exactly does Fr.Francois Laisney say that there are exceptions to the dogma.
Here is my answer.
Fr. Francois Laisney writes:
The first error of those who take their doctrine from Rev. Fr. Leonard Feeney, commonly known as "Feeneyites," is that they misrepresent the dogma, "Outside the [Catholic] Church there is no salvation." The Feeneyites misrepresent this as, "Without baptism of water there is no salvation."
The Feeneyites misrepresent this as, "Without baptism of water there is no salvation."www.sspx.org/…/three_errors_of…
He is implying here that there is salvation in the present times for someone without the baptism of water.
Note: I use the words ‘in the present time’. It refers to the present reality, the de facto situation i.e when I meet a non Catholic on the street or telephone him.
De facto every one needs the baptism of water for salvation this is the teaching of the dogma. So he denies the dogma here.
His denial is probably not willful but due to confusion between defacto-dejure salvation, implicit and explicit salvation.
Implicitly, and known only to God we know that for salvation there could be possible theoretical exceptions to every one needing Catholic Faith and the baptism of water, before they die.
In principle, de jure we accept that a non Catholic can be saved in the way God chooses and this would be an exception. Theoretically there can be ‘exceptions’ de facto there are no exceptions to the dogma. So those who are saved de jure are not exceptions to the dogma.
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/frfrancois-lais…
Fr. Francois Laisney says :
His teaching was then condemned by the Holy Office in 1949, and he himself was excommunicated in 1953.
Nowhere does the Letter state that Fr.Leonard Feeney was 'condemned' or that he was excommunicated for heresy. This is the propaganda of the liberal secular media.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 supported Fr.Leonard Feeney when it mentioned ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible teaching’. The dogma indicates that every non Catholic in Boston and the rest of the world needs to convert into the Church to avoid the fires of Hell.(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence etc).So Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct in saying every one needs to be a visible member of the Church and there are no exceptions. The dogma does not mention exceptions and it is an infallible teaching.Fr.Francois Laisney implies that there are exceptions to the dogma and so Fr.Leonard Feeney was in error.
-Lionel Andrades
SSPX IMPLY BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS VISIBLE, THEN THEY ASSUME IT’S AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION: OFFER LATIN MASS WITH NOVUS ORDO ECCLESIOLOGY
The Society of St. Pius X needs to announce that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma and that everyone with no exception needs to convert into the Church for salvation.Otherwise it is an impediment for saying the Latin Mass. It is the actual rejection of a dogma which Pope Pius XII called an ‘infallible statement’. SSPX must recognize that it is an impediment for offering Holy Mass according to Canon Law.
Similar to the SSPX, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), former SSPX members, are rejecting the dogma and Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7) which says all need to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. For the FSSP all in the present time need to enter the Church except for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.
I do not know if the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican will consider the SSPX and FSSP error an impediment to offering Mass since the Paulist Fathers at the Church of Santa Susanna in Rome reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They claim Vatican Council II has changed this teaching and they provide a theology of religions on their website. They offer Mass in English, ordain their priests and the Vatican gives them canonical status.There are no demands made on them by the Vatican as is the case for the SSPX.
Fr. Peter Scott writes on the SSPX website that unlike the modernists they believe in the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Yes- as compared to the Paulist Fathers in Rome. However there are priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass who say they respect the dogma however those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma. Sounds familiar?
Fr. Peter Scott criticizes the modernist ecclesiology in a letter to Bishop Raymond Boland, of the diocese of Kansas City, USA. Yet the SSPX is using the same ecclesiology as the priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass. If the SSPX priests assume that the baptism of desire contradicts the dogma then they also imply that the baptism of desire is visible for us and is as explicit as the baptism of water.I do not like to write all this since in many ways I admire the SSPX but it is unfortunate that they are using the same ecclesiology as in the Novus Ordo Mass.
Fr. Peter Scott and Fr. Francois Laisney of the SSPX assume in written reports on their website, and in a book by Fr. Laisney, that the baptism of desire is visible and explicit and so is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The SSPX needs to issue a clarification on this subject-Lionel Andrades
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/sspx-imply-bapt…
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Fr.Francois Laisney of the SSPX's denial is probably not willful but due to confusion between defacto-dejure salvation, implicit and explicit salvation.
I have been asked by a reader of this blog where exactly does Fr.Francois Laisney say that there are exceptions to the dogma.
Here is my answer.
Fr. Francois Laisney writes:
The first error of those who take their doctrine from Rev. Fr. Leonard Feeney, commonly known as "Feeneyites," is that they misrepresent the dogma, "Outside the [Catholic] Church there is no salvation." The Feeneyites misrepresent this as, "Without baptism of water there is no salvation."
The Feeneyites misrepresent this as, "Without baptism of water there is no salvation."www.sspx.org/…/three_errors_of…
He is implying here that there is salvation in the present times for someone without the baptism of water.
Note: I use the words ‘in the present time’. It refers to the present reality, the de facto situation i.e when I meet a non Catholic on the street or telephone him.
De facto every one needs the baptism of water for salvation this is the teaching of the dogma. So he denies the dogma here.
His denial is probably not willful but due to confusion between defacto-dejure salvation, implicit and explicit salvation.
Implicitly, and known only to God we know that for salvation there could be possible theoretical exceptions to every one needing Catholic Faith and the baptism of water, before they die.
In principle, de jure we accept that a non Catholic can be saved in the way God chooses and this would be an exception. Theoretically there can be ‘exceptions’ de facto there are no exceptions to the dogma. So those who are saved de jure are not exceptions to the dogma.
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/frfrancois-lais…
Fr. Francois Laisney says :
His teaching was then condemned by the Holy Office in 1949, and he himself was excommunicated in 1953.
Nowhere does the Letter state that Fr.Leonard Feeney was 'condemned' or that he was excommunicated for heresy. This is the propaganda of the liberal secular media.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 supported Fr.Leonard Feeney when it mentioned ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible teaching’. The dogma indicates that every non Catholic in Boston and the rest of the world needs to convert into the Church to avoid the fires of Hell.(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence etc).So Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct in saying every one needs to be a visible member of the Church and there are no exceptions. The dogma does not mention exceptions and it is an infallible teaching.Fr.Francois Laisney implies that there are exceptions to the dogma and so Fr.Leonard Feeney was in error.
-Lionel Andrades