ART SIPPO SUCCUMBS TO THE KUNG DECEPTION

It was Fr.Hans Kung who interpreted Lumen Gentium 16 as referring not to de jure but de facto salvation.It is this interpretation that apologist Art Sippo has accepted. Vatican  Council itself did not say those with invincible  ignorance or the baptism of desire are people that we explicitly know and whom we can explicitly judge. It was Hans Kung and his supporters who taught this heresy and personal interpretation of Vatican Council II.

On the blog of Patrick Madrid , Art Sippo answers questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Patti
USA
7253 PostsPosted - 02/07/2010 : 2:24:56 PM

It is the position of the Catholic Church since Vatican II that it is not STRICTLY necessary to be a card carrying member of the Catholic Church in order to be saved. But it IS the ORDINARY means by which a human being is saved and frankly the only way that carries any assurance of salvation.
Actually, that was in place pre-Vatican II also, from the time of the ECF, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Florence, Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII. It was in fact under Pope Pius XII's holding of the papal office that Fr. Leonard Feeney's error was condemned.

Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare.

She says after 1962-65 the infallibile dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus was changed.But where is the text in Vatican Council II responsible for this change?THERE IS NO SUCH TEXT AVAILABLE IN VATICAN COUNCIL II.

No where does the Council say that those with invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are explicitly and de facto saved rather than being saved in principle, de jure as a concept.

The Church has always taught for centuries that everyone must be a card carrying member of the Catholic Church to go to Heaven.
Here is the ex cathedra dogma.

1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215).

2. “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 302.).

3.“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) – from the website Catholicism.org and “No Salvation outside the Church”: Link List, the Three Dogmatic Statements Regarding EENS http://nosalvationoutsideofthecatholicchurch.blogspot.com/ )

Yet Art Sippo writes the following.

artsippo
USA
5205 PostsPosted - 02/07/2010 : 3:15:36 PM

Absolutely, Patti! I wanted to make it clear that VCII was the watershed of the many centuries of Catholic reflection on the mystery of the Church.

I would like to say a few words about Fr. Feeney. He ran a Catholic chaplaincy in the Cambridge area around Boston near Harvard...

In my last post (SEEING THROUGH THE KUNG DECEPTION ON THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS May 26,2010 Blog : eucharistandmission ) I wrote:

A few days back on a Catholic Forum on the Internet, Jim had an insight. He began to look differently at the familiar mantra “except those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire”.

The Baptism of Desire is always implicit. It is hypothetical, subjective and de jure he observed.

So how can the Baptism of desire and invincible ignorance contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus i.e. everybody needs to be an explicit member of the Catholic Church to be saved?

And if it did not contradict the dogma (even if it did) it would mean every Jew, Muslim or Buddhist is on the way to Hell.

The infallible teaching says everyone explicitly needs the baptism of water to avoid Hell. It says everyone needs Catholic Faith, which is objective, it has to be learnt and one’s knowledge can be tested explicitly.

So the mantra is a deception when it suggests the baptism of water and invincible ignorance are explicit and can be judged in specific persons.

This error is being repeated parrot-like by just about every Catholic. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Doctrine Committee in the Clarification on Fr. Peter Phan repeats a few times that the Church is necessary for salvation ‘except for those in invincible ignorance…’ The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) says everybody needs to enter the Church for salvation except for those in invincible ignorance and with the baptism of desire.

 Art Sippo also says  everybody has not to be a card carrying member of the Catholic Church to be saved from Hell.

Here is part of the Forum discussion:-

     

What do you mean by implicit Baptism of Desire? When is the Baptism of Desire not implicit?


Do you assume that the Catechism and Vatican Council II is referring to explicit baptism of desire and invincible ignorance?

This (Baptism of Desire) is obviously purely speculative, conceptual, de jure...

So if it is speculative then there is no contradiction with the dogma. Everybody has to be a card carrying member of the Catholic Church for salvation.

The mantra had been popularized in the writings of Fr.Hans Kung, who is still allowed to offer Holy Mass. Fr.Kung saw the mantra as referring to explicit and de facto salvation-instead of a possibility ,something hypoterical, de jure (in principle only).

After this faulty premise Kung rationalized that the popes are no more infallible.He believed that Vatican Council II had created a ‘revolution’ even thought the mantra (Lumen Gentium 16) was not mentioned for the first time in the Council, as he could suggest.The Hans Kung Deception was popularized by the secular Jewish-Left media.

Since King interpreted the mantra as referring to explicit salvation he believed the dogma was contradicted.

The popes and Councils, on the contrary, interpreted the mantra as a reference to de jure salvation.It was also accepted in principle, as a concept by St.Thomas Aquinas.Only a concept.

Jim, could now say that the USCCB, SSPX,Patrick Madrid and Fr.Hans Kung are in heresy (Why mention the mantra if you know it is de jure and does not contradict the infallible teaching?). Jim also knows there is no church document which says Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy.

Jim could also say that Art Sippo is in heresy.