The Baptism of the Lord Jesus in the Jordan by St. John the Baptist... painting by Perugino, 1482. It is to be found in Sistine Chapel at the Vatican.
Ednard Kim has left a new comment on your post "KATANUNGAN HINGGIL SA VALIDITY NG MISA NG AGLIPAY ...":
Allow me father to comment on the Doctrine "Extra Ecclessiam Nulla Salus".
We believe that the Church is the body of Christ. Paul Teaches in his letter to the Corinthians, "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself?" (1 Corinthians 6:15) and his letter to the Romans "so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others." (Romans 12:5)
Christ affirms that apart from him we cannot do nothing. "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing." (John 15:5)
St. Jerome, In His letter to Pope St. Damasus, he affirms that "This (Church) is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.") http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.XV.html
According to Second Vatican Ecumenical Council:
"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. HENCE THEY COULD NOT BE SAVE, KNOWING THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS FOUNDED AS NECESSARY BY GOD THROUGH JESUS CHRIST, WOULD REFUSE EITHER TO ENTER IT OR TO REMAIN AT IT" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 14).
But How about those people who never heard the gospel like that of our ancestors before Spain's conquest? The second Vatican Ecumenical Council confirms on the possibility of salvation outside the Church:
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 16).
The Church however condemns Feeneyism. According to Leonard Feeney, SJ, those who were not baptized in the Catholic Church are indiscriminately condemned and that baptism of blood and baptism of desire is does not in anyway makes a person access the gift of salvation. According to Wikipedia:
"Followers of Father Feeney interpret the Catholic Church's declarations that outside of the Church there is no salvation as excluding from salvation people like the American Indians who lived between the times of Christ and Columbus, because they could not have been baptized,"
The Jesuits dismissed him for disobedience and the Holy Office ( Now Congregation for the Doctrine Of Faith) Excommunicated him because he refuse to recant his teaching even with prior canonical warnings. http://www.romancatholicism.org/feeney-condemnations.htm#a3
On my own part however, this doctrine should not be used as a reason to think we are far more better to those who are not in full communion with us. Rather This should be taken as a challenge in our responsibility in the spreading of the Gospel in our daily Lives.
.jpg)
![ST. JEROME EMILIANI [1486-1537]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6dKQTchkJaA/R0lo013dyBI/AAAAAAAAB_4/XzUAPDESwwQ/s1600/St.+Jerome+in+prayer,+small_1.jpg)
Apparently Feeney was as fanatical as St. Augustine of Hippo... But post-V2 era Holy Church is different from the Holy Church during St. Augustine's time in the sense that it is kinder and gentler, infidels aside.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is true that the post Vatican II Church is kinder and gentler to the non Catholics because as Pope John XXIII stated in the Opening of the Council the Church prefers to use the medicine of mercy rather than condemnation nowadays.
ReplyDeleteOf course, we still condemn heresies and we oppose their errors still. But there is wisdom in peace rather than war.
Let us also bear in mind that the Vatican II Fathers were post WORLD WAR II victims. All or almost all of them have experienced the Horror of War, one way or another, like Karol Wojtyla and Josef Ratzinger.
They knew the evil of so much Hatred and of treating one's opponents with so much anger. This poisonous atmosphere in world politics, social life and even in religious confrontations must give way to a more humane ones. More peaceful, more gentle and more merciful.
That is why the Gaudium et Spes of Vatican II is also seen as a response of the Church to avoid the social evils that led to WWI and WWII. We can no longer remain with the same attitude as before because with the advancement of technology human confrontations could be devastating to all of humanity unlike before when only swords and arrows were the weapons.
That is why Pope John XXIII infused the Council with a new perspective and that perspective is truly an inspiration from the Holy Spirit.
Dominicus Vibuscum Father.Opinyon ko lamang po, hindi po natin masasabing hindi maliligtas ang mga taong hindi narating ng ebanghelyo na namumuhay naman ng matuwid at humahanap sa Diyos. Ang wala lamang pong kaligtasasan sa labas ng Inang Simbahan ay yaong mga sinasadyang tumalikod sa kanya at naging mga erehe. Muli po magandang araw at sumainyo po ang Panginoon.
ReplyDelete-RCCKnight
would you mind to post this comment. the link below has something to say on your claims, which i had read year ago for the benefit of the readers regarding the topic tackled above. i hope you will post it and will not ignore it. thanks.
ReplyDeletehttp://esoriano.wordpress.com/2007/09/27/the-truth-is-the-truth-if-it-is-the-whole-truth/
Yes Father, outside the Church there is no salvation. The Church as the Body of Christ, and Christ as the Head of the Church, are intimately united. You cannot have one without the other. Thus, to be outside the Church is to be outside of Christ; and to be outside of Christ, there is no salvation. (By the way, it was my old Catechist who taught me that!)
ReplyDeletefather... La Rosa po hindi de Rosa... hehehe thank you po.,...
ReplyDeleteThank you RCCKnight. God bless you.
ReplyDeleteWe, Catholics, are more accountable to God because we already know the way to salvation. Everything we do against the teachings of the Church are done with malice. Lord, have mercy on me.
ReplyDelete"But he who hears and does not do them is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation; against which the stream broke, and immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great." the last paragraph of the gospel reading today.
ReplyDeleteYES, IT IS TRUE. WE ARE MORE ACCOUNTABLE BECAUSE WE HAVE THE FULLNESS OF TRUTH AND OF FAITH.
ReplyDeleteAy LA ROSA pala. He, he, he... Sorry.
ReplyDeleteThanks Bro. Manny
ReplyDeleteThe issue of those who don't know the Gospel or haven't heard it has been addressed:
ReplyDelete“The Holy Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Infallible definition of the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445) From Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV
Submitted by Discipulus
MANNY CRUZ said...
ReplyDeleteYes Father, outside the Church there is no salvation. The Church as the Body of Christ, and Christ as the Head of the Church, are intimately united. You cannot have one without the other. Thus, to be outside the Church is to be outside of Christ; and to be outside of Christ, there is no salvation. (By the way, it was my old Catechist who taught me that!)
Fr. Abe, CRS said...
Thanks Bro. Manny
Then RCC is like INC? Not within their church is no salvation? Is that it? How about those who live in the time of Jesus Christ on the Philippines, the Ifugaos who built the Rice Terraces and many more who did not heard Christ or the gospel, are they already straight to hell because according to your doctrine, outside your churches no one will be save? jeez!
Dear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteWill you please use your HEAD and your EYES. It is already explained above that the Catholic Church does not teach that all those who are not CAtholics will not be saved.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church clarifies that those who are not aware of the Gospel through no fault of their own but living good lives can be saved. However, their salvation can also come through the Catholic Church because it is the Church that offers prayers and sacrifices for them.
Dear Discipulus,
ReplyDeleteThe Bull Cantate Domino by Pope Eugene IV is NOT INFALLIBLE. Not because that Bull is produced during the Council of Florence does not mean it is an Infallible Teaching or a Dogmatic Declaration.
Of course, it must be respected still as an expression of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.
The Bull Cantate Domino is not in conflict with the declaration of the Vatican II that those who have not heard of the Gospel through no fault of their own can also receive salvation if they are living good lives.
Why? Because Cantate Domino speaks of the heretics, schismatics and those who refused to enter into the Catholic Church. It didn't refer to those who have not heard of the Gospel through no fault of their own.
Besides, in the 6 billion population of the world only 1.1 billion is Catholic. Are you so happy that those 5 billion souls will go to hell?
Those who have not heard the Gospel may or may not be saved. Lets leave that Judgement to God for He alone can say a person is saved or not. There is what we call Baptism of desire in which non-Catholic who wished to enter the "True Church" and have lived a life of virtue may be saved. It is true that the Catholic Church will provide that man the necessary grace he needed to be saved (not his own religion)
ReplyDeleteScenario:
A Jew1 (who never heard about Jesus and never will) lived in the mountains of Mt. NeverHeard. He have lived a good life and faithful to Jewish rules,traditions,etc and had desired to be united to be with God after His death. Never in his life he committed serious sins, killing, stealing, sins of the flesh, etc.
Scenario 2:
Same as scenario 1 but this man doesnt care about religion and doesnt care about God. All he wanted is goodness while we hes still alive.
Scenario 4:
A Jew4 who sins a lot, immoral man, but is faithful to Jewish traditions and rules,etc.
Jew1 will have the chance to be saved (by God's mercy and through the prayers of the Church). He will not be saved by his own effort but by the prayers of the church but a desire must be present. Jew2 will go to hell and Jew 4 will go to the sewer of fire.
Is my Math OK?
Outside the Church there is no salvation. The existence of Baptism of desire made non-Catholics become Church member. And the Papal Bull is pointed towards the Jew2 and Jew4.
Papal Bull is ALWAYS INFALLIBLE. It may not be dogmatic but a Papal Bull is Infallible.
The Blessed Mother appeared in Fatima showing the 3 children the vision of Hell. As the children described it. It appeared to be that there is a rain of souls going to hell. At this very moment, many souls are diving in Hell. The 5 million population are certainly going to Hell expect those "inside the church" through baptism of desire.
Not all Papal Bull is Infallible. It is not always so. Besides, it depends on the content of the Bull and the formulation of the statement. Most of the Bull released from 15th century onward are mostly solemn and formal declarations of the Popes but it does not mean that all are Infallible acts or Dogmatic pronouncements.
ReplyDeleteYour Scenario are obviously designed to send those people to Hell. Thus, they are set up for damnation not by God or by the Catholic Church but by your preference.
Scenario:
[A Jew1 (who never heard about Jesus and never will) lived in the mountains of Mt. NeverHeard. He have lived a good life and faithful to Jewish rules,traditions,etc and had desired to be united to be with God after His death. Never in his life he committed serious sins, killing, stealing, sins of the flesh, etc.]
A Tibetan farmer [I hope you heard of Tibet] lived a good life and faithful to the law of the land. He never heard of Jesus Christ because of Communist control of Tibet and because there was very little Christian presence in his country. He does not kill, no vices and he is convinced that there is a Creator-God to whom he gives his allegiance.
[Scenario 2:
Same as scenario 1 but this man doesnt care about religion and doesnt care about God. All he wanted is goodness while we hes still alive.]
But what if he cares about God, about religion, about the way of peace and about LOVE? Don't forget: "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers you do unto me." What if that person feeds the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked? Goodness and love is not exclusive of Catholics. It is present in other people if you heard of that fact.
[Scenario 4:
A Jew4 who sins a lot, immoral man, but is faithful to Jewish traditions and rules,etc.]
This one obviously will not be saved. EVEN A CATHOLIC WHO IS BAPTIZED BUT LIVING IN SIN AND IMMORALITIES WILL NOT BE SAVED UNLESS HE IS PURIFIED FROM SINS. As the Book of Revelation states: "Nothing unclean will enter heaven."
Scenario:
ReplyDelete[A Jew1 (who never heard about Jesus and never will) lived in the mountains of Mt. NeverHeard. He have lived a good life and faithful to Jewish rules,traditions,etc and had desired to be united to be with God after His death. Never in his life he committed serious sins, killing, stealing, sins of the flesh, etc.]
A Tibetan farmer [I hope you heard of Tibet] lived a good life and faithful to the law of the land. He never heard of Jesus Christ because of Communist control of Tibet and because there was very little Christian presence in his country. He does not kill, no vices and he is convinced that there is a Creator-God to whom he gives his allegiance.
[Scenario 2:
Same as scenario 1 but this man doesnt care about religion and doesnt care about God. All he wanted is goodness while we hes still alive.]
But what if he cares about God, about religion, about the way of peace and about LOVE? Don't forget: "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers you do unto me." What if that person feeds the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked? Goodness and love is not exclusive of Catholics. It is present in other people if you heard of that fact.
[Scenario 4:
A Jew4 who sins a lot, immoral man, but is faithful to Jewish traditions and rules,etc.]
This one obviously will not be saved. EVEN A CATHOLIC WHO IS BAPTIZED BUT LIVING IN SIN AND IMMORALITIES WILL NOT BE SAVED UNLESS HE IS PURIFIED FROM SINS. As the Book of Revelation states: "Nothing unclean will enter heaven."
==============
ReplyDeleteFr Abe said:
Your Scenario are obviously designed to send those people to Hell. Thus, they are set up for damnation not by God or by the Catholic Church but by your preference.
==============
Anonymous said:
Yes I am making a scenario for people who will go to hell except Scenario1
============
Fr Abe said:
But what if he cares about God, about religion, about the way of peace and about LOVE? Don't forget: "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers you do unto me." What if that person feeds the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked? Goodness and love is not exclusive of Catholics. It is present in other people if you heard of that fact.
==========
anonymous said:
If the person in scenario 2 cares about religion and God, then that scenario is the same as scenario 1 but different person. I have Jew and you use Tibetan.
Scenario 4, you're right father! That is what i was trying to say.
It seems that we are both agreeing with this Fr expect for one thing. The Papal Bull is Infallible. Remember the Papal Bull is an official writings of the Pope as a successor of Peter and there is what we call Papal Infallibility. When the Pope speaks with regards to faith and morals; and in behalf of the Church the Pope is Infallible. However if the Pope speaks for himself or speaks as an opinion, it does mean he is infallible. So if the Pope is not talking about faith and morals and not talking in behalf of the church, he may err.
There is a level of Papal document
1. Motu Propio - "in His own initiative"
2. Encyclicals -
3. The Highest is the Papal Bull.
Motu Propio is the least since it is not infallible. If a Papal Bull is not Infallible, then it can be considered Muto Propio and not Papal Bull. I hope you understand my point Fr.
Can you cite a Papal Bull which is not Infallible if there is any? I can't find one.
Yes, there is really no conflict with our position. So, no debate between us. We are expressing the same thing but we stress one point and another without rejecting the other.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the Papal Bull you are insisting that they are all Infallible but not all Dogmatic. On my part, they are Official Teaching but not infallible. I think we are hairsplitting only for proper terminology. There is no problem for me accepting each and every Papal Bull as Infallible because we accept and love each one of them and they are all free from Doctrinal Error. He, he, he...
I leave that little details to concentrate on the enemies of the faith.
Thank you very much for your sharing Brother. I appreciate it very much.
Okay Fr. Thanks for your time... :) Concentrate on defending the Catholic Faith.
ReplyDeleteAve Maria,
PJ
AVE MARIA PJ. GOD BLESS YOU. Please feel free to send your comments and sharing.
ReplyDeleteUhmm, Fr, bakit po c Pope Paul VI ang last na nag take ng Papal Coronation Oath? thanks po.
ReplyDelete[Uhmm, Fr, bakit po c Pope Paul VI ang last na nag take ng Papal Coronation Oath?]
ReplyDeleteANG PAPAL CORONATION AY HINDI DOGMA NG SANTA IGLESIA KUNDI ISANG RITUAL NA LATER LANG ISINAGAWA. KAYA ITO AY PWEDENG TANGGALIN.
SI SAN PEDRO AT ANG MGA SUMUNOD NA PAPA AY HINDI KINORONAHAN NG TIARA. SUBALIT WALANG MASAMA NA GUMAMIT NG TIARA DAHIL BIBLICAL ANG TIARA. GANON PA MAN HINDI RIN MASAMA NA HINDI GUMAMIT NG TIARA.
WALANG ARAL ANG IGLESIA CATOLICA NA ANG PAPANG HINDI NAGSUOT NG TIARA AY HINDI TUNAY NA PAPA. HA, HA, HA... KABALIWAN LANG IYAN NG MGA SSPX AT SEDEVACANTISTS.
NINAIS NI POPE PAUL VI NA HINDI NA ISUOT ANG TIARA DAHIL PARA SA KANYA AY PAGPAPAKITA IYON NG KABABAANG LOOB. ANG SANTO PAPA AY HINDI LANG HARI... UNA MUNA SIYA AY 'SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD'. ISA PA, ESKANDALO NGAYON SA LIPUNAN ANG PAGSUSUOT NG SOBRANG RANGYANG MGA KASUOTAN O KORONA NA MARAMING MGA BATO AT MAMAHALING HIYAS. INSULTO IYON SA MGA MAHIHIRAP NA NAGUGUTOM.
THE NEXT POPES ALSO REFUSED TO PUT ON THE TIARA AND I THINK THAT IS A VERY GOOD DECISION. THEY SHOWED MORAL INTEGRITY BY DOING SO. THEY ARE NOT AFTER GRANDEUR OR POWER BUT MEN OF GOD AND OF SERVICE TO THE CHURCH.
[ thanks po. ]
WELCOME
Fr Hindi po ang Tiara ang ibig kong sabihin. ang ibig kong sabihin ay ang "Oath" during Papal Coronation. eto po:
ReplyDelete"I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;
To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;
To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear; to guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the divine ordinance of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;
I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.
I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.
If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.
Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone -- be it Ourselves or be it another -- who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture."
PAPAL CORONATION OATH
Thanks po ulit.
ITS THE SAME. THAT CORONATION OATH IS NOT A DOGMA OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. THAT WAS COMPOSED MUCH LATER NA. ST. PETER DIDN'T TAKE THAT OATH AND NEVER HAD A CORONATION AS WELL AS MANY OF OUR POPES.
ReplyDeleteTHE POPE IS A POPE WITH OR WITHOUT THAT OATH. THE ONLY CRITERION IS THE VALID ELECTION AS POPE.
But why did abandon the oath? it may not be a dogma but it is still important to keep the integrity of the Catholic Church..
ReplyDeleteO NO. IT IS NOT IMPORTANT TO KEEP THE INTEGRITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. THAT OATH WAS BEAUTIFUL DURING THE TIME WHEN THE WORLD WAS RULED BY KINGS AND QUEENS BUT NOW IN A DEMOCRATIC SETTING IT SOUNDS RIDICULOUS. THE POPE WILL LOOK TO POWER HUNGRY FOR POLITICAL POWER.
ReplyDeleteHUMILITY AND SIMPLICITY ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT TO KEEP THE INTEGRITY OF THE CHURCH. NOT THE TIARA AND THE OUTDATED OATH.
Which line or "idea" in the oath is outdated?
ReplyDeleteTHE CORONATION ITSELF. IT MAKES THE POPE APPEAR LIKE A WORLDLY POWER RATHER THAN A SPIRITUAL POWER. THE MESSIAH HIMSELF REFUSED TO BE CROWNED WITH EARTLY DIADEMS AND MATERIAL CROWN.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteWhich line or "idea" in the oath is outdated?
Fr. Abe, CRS said...
THE CORONATION ITSELF. IT MAKES THE POPE APPEAR LIKE A WORLDLY POWER RATHER THAN A SPIRITUAL POWER. THE MESSIAH HIMSELF REFUSED TO BE CROWNED WITH EARTLY DIADEMS AND MATERIAL CROWN.
I mean Fr, which line in the Papal Coronation Oath is outdated? The oath of the pope, his
"vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;
To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;
...
...
Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone -- be it Ourselves or be it another -- who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture."
now, Fr saang line or "idea" man lang or phrase or sentence sa oath, ang outdated?
I must agree the Coronation in itself is "wordly" because of the expensive clothes and beautiful "everything". I am only asking for the OATH. not the coronation. Yung VOW or OATH, yun ang ibig kong sabihin, hindi ang coronation mismo. Which line Fr? and why is it that the last Pope to take that OATH is Pope Paul VI? or did Pope John XXIII ever said that?
[now, Fr saang line or "idea" man lang or phrase or sentence sa oath, ang outdated?]
ReplyDeleteOF COURSE, YOU HAVE PRESENTED TO ME THE LINE THAT IS VALID FOR ALL TIME. WHY DIDN'T YOU PRESENT THE ENTIRE CORONATION OATH COMPLETELY?
[I must agree the Coronation in itself is "wordly" because of the expensive clothes and beautiful "everything".]
OF COURSE IT IS WORDLY. NOT ONLY THAT. IT IS NOT PART OF SACRED TRADITION. IT IS A LATER INVENTION, JUST A PRACTICE THAT CAN BE REMOVED IF IT IS DEEMED NO LONGER NECESSARY.
DEFINITELY, THE LORD JESUS DIDN'T ASK ST. PETER TO PRONOUNCE THOSE WORDS IN PUBLIC. DID HE? FOR SURE ST PETER DIDN'T ORDER ST. LINUS TO HAVE THAT KIND OF CORONATION, DID HE?
OATH OR NO OATH THE POPE IS POPE ONCE ELECTED. AND HE IS THE GUARDIAN, UPHOLDER AND CHIEF BEARER OF SACRED TRADITION OF THE CHURCH.
OBEDIENCE TO THE POPE IS ESSENTIAL TO THE SACRED TRADITION. BUT CORONATION OATH IS NOT PART OF IT. THAT IS JUST A LATER INVENTION MORE FOR SPECTACLE AND MANIFESTATION OF CHURCH DIGNITY DURING THE AGE OF KINGS AND QUEENS. NOW, IT IS RIDICULOUS TO DO SO.
[I am only asking for the OATH. not the coronation.]
IF THE CORONATION IS OUTDATED THEN IT INCLUDES EVERYTHING IN IT. YOU ARE DOGMATIZING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT A DOGMA AND YOU ARE PRESENTING THINGS AS IF THE ABSENCE OF THAT LATELY-INVENTED CORONATION RITE INCLUDING ITS OATH AS IF IT IS AN ABANDONMENT OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE POPE TO BE THE CHIEF GUARDIAN OF FAITH AND MORALS.
THE CONTENT OF THE LINE THAT YOU HAVE PRESENTED IS NOT BEING DENIED. IT IS UPHELD AND ACCEPTED. BUT IN ACTUALITY THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE POPE TO MAKE AN OATH OF SUCH KIND. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PETRINE OFFICE IS HANDED ON TO HIM BY VIRTUE OF HIS ELECTION AND NOT BY ANY OATH.
[Yung VOW or OATH, yun ang ibig kong sabihin, hindi ang coronation mismo.]
YUNG OATH KASAMA YON SA CORONATION. THE ENTIRE CORONATION IS NOT PART OF APOSTOLIC TRADITION. THE POPE IS POPE WITH OR WITHOUT IT.
IF YOU WANT IT THEN YOU WAIT FOR THE NEXT POPE WHO IS CRAZY ENOUGH TO WEAR THOSE RUBIES AND SAPPHIRES ENCRUSTED TIARA AND WITH A RIDICULOUS CORONATION RITES. YOU CAN WAIT UNTIL YOU DIE BECAUSE NO CARDINAL IN HIS RIGHT MIND WILL MAKE A WORLDLY SPECTACLE LIKE THAT ANYMORE.
[Which line Fr? and why is it that the last Pope to take that OATH is Pope Paul VI? or did Pope John XXIII ever said that?]
WHO CARES? THIS IS A TRIVIAL MATTER. HA, HA, HA... WHY? ARE THOSE POPES WHO DIDN'T PRONOUNCE THOSE CORONATION OATH INVALID?
Monday, June 13, 2011
ReplyDeleteFR. FRANCESCO GIORDANO AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE
The Italian diocesan priest Fr. Francesco Giordano studying at the Holy Cross University, Rome and working for his doctorate on the subject extra ecclesiam nulla salus says he affirms the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441.The ex cathedra dogma says all non Catholics, specifying, Jews, Protestants and Orthodox Christians needing to formally enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell, which has fire.
One can affirm Cantate Domino which indicates everyone with no exception, de facto needs to enter the Church and, at the same time believe de jure; in principle, a non Catholic can be saved implicitly (baptism of desire etc) and it would be known only to God.
However Fr. Giordano’s position on 1) Fr. Leonard Feeney and 2) Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II is not clear. He seems to contradict the dogma on these two points. Though, he told me at the Church Santa Maria di Nazareth, Boccea, Rome that he affirms Cantate Domino.
Fr. Giordano, who has studied at the University of Chicago, is a young priest fluent in English and Italian. He received his Licentiate from the University of St. Thomas Aquinas, Rome and the subject of his thesis there was outside the church there is no salvation.
Like St. Thomas Aquinas if one uses the defacto-dejure analysis it is possible to hold the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of the dogma and also affirm the baptism of desire (Council of Trent) and so not be considered a heretic. It does not have to be an either-or position i.e. the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or the baptism of desire.
Fr. Giordano believes Cantate Domino is compatible with Vatican Council II, Catechism of the Catholic Church and other Magisterial documents.
CONTINUED
from the blog: eucharistandmission
THANK YOU SO CATHOLIC MISSION.
ReplyDeleteCONTINUED
ReplyDeleteIt would mean Lumen Gentium 16 does not say that we know of cases of non Catholics saved in the present times in invincible ignorance. If the Lumen Gentium text does not make this claim and rationally we cannot know any such case, then Vatican Council II does not contradict Cantate Domino - and we are back to the centuries-old interpretation.
Would the Opus Dei University accept this doctoral thesis?
We do not know any case of a person saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire (BOD). We don’t know any specific case. So we can accept BOD and invincible ignorance only in principle. We can know it only as a concept.
We can never know any such case in reality. We cannot meet someone who has been saved with BOD or in invincible ignorance. So it is never de facto; real, as is the baptism of water. The baptism of water is repeatable and visible. It is de facto.
So when we refer to the baptism of desire it is always de jure (in principle, acceptable). It can never be known in reality.
If it is not de facto to us it does not contradict Cantate Domino on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. (EENS)
So de facto Catholic Faith and the baptism of water are needed for all for salvation, with no exception.
While de jure, in principle, there can be persons known to God only who can be saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance (in the manner known to God).
So affirming the baptism of desire etc does not conflict with the interpretation of EENS according to Fr. Leonard Feeney. Fr.Leonard Feeney taught de facto everyone with no exception needed to enter the Church for salvation and de facto or de jure we do not know any case of the baptism of desire.
There is no de facto or de jure baptism of desire (implicit salvation) that we can know of as humans.
It is never de facto and so never in conflict with the dogma.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
ReplyDeleteThere can be a baptism of desire de facto known to God but it can never be defacto for us.
So the baptism of desire can never be known de facto and can only be accepted in principle I repeat. Since it can never be defacto known to us it does not oppose the dogmatic teaching. Since one accepts it in principle; as a possibility, one cannot be called a heretic. I cannot be called a heretic for rejecting the baptism of desire. I do not. I accept it in principle as a possibility known de facto only to God.Neither can I be called a heretic for affirming Cantate Domino. Since it refers to de facto everyone needing Catholic Faith and the baptism of water the same as Ad Gentes 7 and it is not in conflict with the Council of Trent's reference to the baptism of desire(implicit and dejure).
Since one is defacto and the other de jure it does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction as would a defacto-defacto irrational analysis.
We cannot know any case of implicit salvation i.e. baptism of desire, invincible ignorance, good conscience, partial communion with the Church as it is never de facto known to us. So it is not opposed to the dogma which indicates everyone needs to de facto enter the Church for salvation. The dogma says everyone with no exception needs to be a formal, de facto member of the Church for salvation. Everyone de facto needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
Probably if Fr.Giordanao knew the truth on this subject and wrote it in his thesis , the Angelicum would not permit him to receive a Licentiate. They would not even approve the subject for ‘research’. At the Opus Dei University Fr. Francesco has chosen a seemingly harmless aspect of outside the Church the church there is no salvation. He will focus on a specific time period of the dogma and with reference to St. Thomas Aquinas.
Imagine him telling the professor at the Angelicum that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 supported Fr. Leonard Feeney on doctrine. The Letter referred to the ‘dogma’. The text of the dogma, Cantate Domino above, has the same message as Fr. Leonard Feeney; the Church teaches ‘infallibly’ that all Jews in Boston need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell. So how could Fr. Leonard Feeney could be excommunicated for heresy as the media and the Angelicum claim? Would they allow him to continue ?
Imagine him telling the professor at the Angelicum that there is no text in Vatican Council II which contradicts Cantate Domino.
Even now at the Holy Cross University can he challenge his professors to point out any text in Vatican Council II which contradicts Cantate Domino?
Similar errors as at the Angelicum are also being taught at the Opus Dei University. He could have to provide ‘research’ which is politically acceptable.
A common error at the Catholic Universities and traditionalist priests of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX),supporters of Fr. Leonard Feeney and sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery are:
They say there is no baptism of desire. They are correct there is no known case of a person saved with the baptism of desire. De facto in reality we don’t know any such case. So in this sense the vague phrase’ there is no baptism of desire’ is correct.
However in its nature, the baptism of desire can never be defacto for us. In its very nature, since it is known only to God; there is no de facto d baptism of desire for us.
It is only de facto for God and for us humans a concept, a possibility, acceptable in principle (de jure).
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
ReplyDeleteSo the Most Holy Family Monastery(MHFM) reject the baptism of desire since they assume it is de facto and so contradicts the dogma Cantate Domini.
It would be contrary to the principle of Non Contradiction for the MHFM’s Dimond Brothers to accept a baptism of desire, which is, defacto for them. They must realize that the baptism of desire can never be known de facto and since it is dejure, known only to God, it does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction. So I can affirm Cantate Domino and also the baptism of desire (de jure, a possibility). This is not heresy as the MHFM would claim, since in principle I accept the possibility of a person being saved with the baptism of desire.
How does the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate at Boccea, where Fr. Francesco lives, respond to this issue? Fr. Francesco offers the Tridentine Mass at the Church there and often hears Confession.
The Parish Priest is Fr. Settimo Manelli FFI (Tel: 06-6156091 06-6156091 E-mail: santamariadinazareth@gmail.com ).I have been sending some of these posts on this blog, to Fr.Settimo and to Fr. John Francesco FFI, an American priest of the community who also lives at Boccea. Here there are some 30 Friars many of whom study Philosophy at the seminary in Boccea.They are taught by Fr. John Francesco and the other FFI priests. I would like them to answer these four questions about the Catholic Faith.
1. Do they hold to the ‘teachings ‘of the Church according to the media (New York Times, Boston Globe, Reuters etc) or according to Magisterial texts, on the subject of extra eccleisam nulla salus?
2. Do they interpret Vatican Council II and Fr. Leonard Feeney as an exception to Cantate Domino or do they see Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) and the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston 1949, affirming Cantate Domino?
3. There can be no Tridentine Rite Mass without extra eccleisam nulla salus. To reject an ex cathedra dogma, in the name of Vatican Council II or whatever is heresy. It’s a mortal sin ?
4. Can we personally know cases of non Catholics saved in the present times with a good conscience, the Word of God, in partial communion with the Church etc?
Fr. Francesco Giordano who lives with the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate at Boccea affirms Cantate Domino and the baptism of desire. So he cannot be called a heretic. This has been a sad controversy in the Church. He affirms Cantate Domino and Vatican Council II. I am sure other priests will also follow him.
-Lionel Andrades