Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Jeffrey Mirus Traditionalists have no problem with Dignitatis Humanae since they interpret it according to tradition

Jeffrey Mirus Traditionalists have no problem with Dignitatis Humanae since they interpret it according to tradition

Jeffrey Mirus writes in Vatican II on Religious Freedom (September 13, 2010 Catholic Culture )  that the Vatican Council II Document Declaration on Religious Freedom is controversial for traditionalists.

Dignitatis Humanae can be interpreted according to Catholic Tradition and the ex cathedra dogma extra eccleisam nulla salus. Its Mirus and Fr.Hans Kung who would then have difficulty accepting this Document.

We Catholics have the right to follow Catholic doctrines and to express them. Expression of ones faith is not coercion. We respect the non-Catholics right to live his faith and express it.

We also believe that thet Church teaches that Jesus must be the centre of all political legislation. So we seek a Catholic government which would provide religious freedom in a multi cultural society.

Enjoining the Christian faithful, “in the formation of their consciences”, to “carefully attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church”

Mirus like Fr.Hans Kung rejects the ex cathedra dogma and so this is contrary to the passage he has quoted on ‘the formation of conscience’ and ‘sacred doctrine’.

Religious freedom does not mean that you may throw away Church teaching.

The report Tragic Errors of Fr. Leonard Feeney by Fr.William Most placed on the Internet by Trinity Communications is hatred and disinformation about the Catholic Church, its teachings and about a priest who was innocent and only following a centuries-old dogma now affirmed by Vatican Council II.

The report falsely alleges that the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus does not say everyone must be a visible, formal member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.

Trinity Communications 'Jeffrey Mirus, who is also President of Catholic Culture (CatholicCulture.org), has sent me an e-mail. He denies that the dogma says everyone must be a visible member of the Church. He said this is not the teaching of the Magisterium. However he has not been able to provide any Magisterial text to support his view.

One’s basic right to live the Catholic faith freely and to express it freely has been under threat over the extra ecclesiam nulla salus issue.
Mirus claims :

The Roman Catholic Church also teaches that the doctrine does not mean that everyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned 
There is another interpretation of Vatican Council II, which is different from his. So to claim that Vatican Council II has one interpretation, which is his, is another falsehood. It’s a lie to claim that his view is the official teaching of the Catholic Magisterium.

So if Jeff Mirus and Trinity Communications interpret the dogma with one interpretation, it must be acknowledged that this is just one interpretation and not the official and only interpretation of Vatican Council II. The text of Lumen Gentium 16 is neutral and does not refer to an explicit Baptism of desire that we can know of. Neither do we know any particular person in explicit invincible ignorance or having an explicitly good conscience.

Similarly Trinity Communications interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing is a personal view. The Vatican has not issued any document approving Trinity Communication and Fr. Most’s interpretation of the Letter.

Another interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 would be that: the first half of the Letter, which refers to doctrine, affirms and supports Fr. Leonard Feeney. The second half, which refers to discipline and disobedience, criticizes Fr.Feeney and St. Benedict Centre for their disobedience to the Archbishop of Boston.

Over time it was discovered that Archbishop Cushing denied that everybody needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church (Cantate Domino).He also suggested that there was an explicit Baptism of desire. This is heresy. It is contrary to the ex cathedra dogma Cantate Domino. It was a new doctrine. He also did not deny reports in the Boston newspapers which stated that the Church has changed it centuries old teaching. He would contradict Ad Gentes 7, Dominus Iesus 20 the CDF Notification of Fr. Dupuis. He would also help begin the misinterpretation of Lumen Gentium 16 (explicit invincible ignorance).

1. The Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 is an ex cathedra dogma and supersedes other Church Documents and it’s for all time. It says everyone needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church. (This is affirmed in Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II and Dominus Iesus).

The report placed by Trinity Communications on the Internet is falsehood.

Jeff Mirus continues to place Baptism of desire as opposed to the dogma which says that everyone needs to be a visible and formal member of the Church. He is unable to interpret Vatican Council II as saying that everyone needs to be a visible member of the Church to avoid Hell and if there is anyone with the Baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance it will be known only to God.

Jeff Mirus, President of Catholic Culture in his new post Salvation for Non-Catholics and Limbo (August 11, 2010) says that ‘the church does officially teach a way of salvation for adults outside the visible structure of the Church. This way is often called baptism of desire.’

We have no problem with Baptism of desire and invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) as long as he does not assume that we could know of any case of explicit baptism of desire or invincible ignorance. So if Lumen Gentium 16 refers always to implicit Baptism of Desire it does not contradict the infallible teaching which says everyone must be a formal member of the Catholic Church with Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water to avoid Hell (Ex cathedra Cantate Domini, Council of Florence 1441, Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II).

So when Pope Pius XII, as Mirus says ‘in his great encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, explained that those outside the visible structure of the Church can “have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer” by means of “an unconscious desire and longing” pope Pius XII was not contradicting himself in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which referred to ‘the dogma’ , the ‘infallible’ teaching ; that taught that everyone needs to be a card carrying member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell and go to Heaven.

Similarly St. Thomas Aquinas taught the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,i.e de facto everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation and yet he also mentioned in principle(de jure) the case of the man in the forest in invincible ignorance who could be saved. There was no conflict.

There is no Church Document which refers to those saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as referring to ‘substantial membership in the church’ as Jeff Mirus would like to believe, which could replace, formal membership.


Here is the actual ex cathedra dogma referred to by Pope Pius XII in the Letter of the Holy Office in 1949 and which Fr.Leonard Feeney affirmed.

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). Ex cathedra.

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, 1302.).Ex cathedra.

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.) Ex cathedra – from the website Catholicism.org and “No Salvation outside the Church”: Link List, the Three Dogmatic Statements Regarding EENS http://nosalvationoutsideofthecatholicchurch.blogspot.com/
The ex cathedra teaching says everyone needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church.

...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.). Ex Cathedra

...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…

..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.) Ex Cathedra

It is also mixing up Lumen Gentium 16 with Ad Gentes 7 as if they are opposed to each other.

It is correct to say all people need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water to go to Heaven (Ad Gentes 7) and if there is anyone in invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) it will be known to God only and he will provide the helps necessary for salvation.

Catholic Culture and the Jewish Left media repeat a heresy.

If we interpret Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) as refering to explicit baptism of desire and so contradicting the dogma, then we need to observe that it is always explicit only for God. There is no explicit, external Baptism of Desire that we can humanly know of. So LG 16 always refers to implicit Baptism of Desire, ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) and so is known only to God. Baptism of desire is only a concept for us and so in this sense it is implicit.So it does not contradict the infallible teaching which says everyone needs to be a visible, formal member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.

We cannot place LG 16 against AG 7 since we do not know any case of the Baptism of Desire or invincible ignorance.

So when Jeff Mirus says non Catholics need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation except for those…it does not make sense since explicitly or implicitly we do not know any particular case of the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance. Neither can we know whom Jesus will judge as having a good conscience on the Day of Judgment.

To repeat the above confused statement would also be an interpretation of Vatican Council II which is opposed to an infallible teaching which for centuries said everyone needs to be a visible member of the Church. It is rejecting the dogma of the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra.

So it makes sense to say: everyone needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church with no exceptions and if there is anyone with the Baptism of desire or invincible ignorance it will be known only to God.

The ‘rigorist interpretation’ of the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is in accord with Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium 16, Ad Gentes 7), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (N.845,1257) and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney.

Salvation for Non-Catholics: Not a New Idea The website CatholicCulture.org says in the report
Salvation for Non-Catholics : Not a New Idea :-By Dr. Jeff Mirus August 05, 2010

The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) cites St. Paul’s letter to the Romans when it asserts the possibility for salvation for non-Catholics and even for non-Christians...

Now, from the quoted passage in this Dogmatic Constitution, we see the Church asserting again that even non-Christians can be saved (as many Traditionalists and Feeneyites have flatly denied)

Feeneyites have flatly denied….?
They have not.

Here is a definition of the Baptism of Desire from the website of St. Benedict Centre, NH, USA (Catholicism.org) whose founder was Fr. Leonard Feeney.

5. Regarding baptism of desire:

No Pope, Council, or theologian says that baptism of desire is a sacrament.

Likewise no Pope, Council, or theologian says that baptism of desire incorporates one into the Catholic Church.

Question: Without contradicting the thrice defined Dogma, “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church”, and the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent, how can one define the expression baptism of desire?

Answer: The following definition of baptism of desire can be made which will be totally consistent with the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent and with the thrice defined dogma of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church”. This definition of baptism of desire goes as follows:

In its proper meaning, this consists of an act of perfect contrition or perfect love [that is Charity, which necessarily implies that one has the True Faith], and the simultaneous desire for baptism. It does not imprint an indelible character on the soul and the obligation to receive Baptism by water remains. (From page 126 of The Catholic Concise Encyclopedia , by Robert Broderick, M.A., copyright 1957, Imprimatur by Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York, August 31, 1956) - Desire, Justification, and Salvation at the Council of Trent, by Br. David Mary, M.I.C.M., Tert. May 02nd, 2005
So they accept the Baptism of Desire in principle. They accept it as a concept just like Fr. Leonard Feeney who described the case of the catechumen who dies before receiving the Baptism of water.

They reject Baptism as explicit since only God knows to whom the Baptism of Desire has been given. We do not know any particular case. None of us can see a Baptism of Desire externally.So they reject EXPLICIT, knowable, external Baptism of desire.

They reject implicit Baptism of desire in the sense that we do not know in principle any case of the Baptism of Desire. We are not likely to know any during our lifetime.

However as a general concept they accept that God can give someone the grace of the Baptism of Desire which will culminate with the Baptism of water for salvation.

So they are saying that a non Catholic known only to God, can be saved with the Baptism of desire as defined above. However everyone on earth we know according to the infallible teaching needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell and if there is someone who can be saved with the Baptism of desire it will be known only to God.

So I wish Dr.Jeffrey Mirus would clarify what does he mean by they have flatly denied that non Christians can be saved.

Secondly, supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney could also interpret the same Vatican Council text as Jeffrey Mirus. No Magisterial document says Mirus' interpretation is the official one.

There are can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II

1. According to Jeffrey Mirus and the Jewish Left media.

The ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus says everybody needs to be an explicit member of the Church and there are no exceptions however according to Dei Verbum ,Lumen Gentium 16 etc a person can be saved who is not a member of the Catholic Church. So Vatican Council II refutes or contradicts the infallible teaching.

2. According to Lionel Andrades in accord with the dogma and Tradition.

The ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus says everybody needs to be an explicit member of the Church and there are no exceptions and if a person is saved who is not a member of the Catholic Church (LG 16,Vatican Council II etc) then this will be known only to God. So Vatican Council II does not contradict the infallible teaching.
____________________________________________________

On the Culture

Vatican II on Religious Freedom

By Dr. Jeff Mirus
September 13, 2010 4:21 PM

One of Vatican II's more controversial teachings is found in the thirteenth document, the Declaration on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae), issued on December 7, 1965. Some Traditionalist groups hold that this document contradicts earlier Magisterial teachings on the responsibility of government to recognize the true religion and suppress error. So that it need not detain us, I have already addressed this issue in Doctrinal Development on Religious Liberty. Here I simply wish to continue our series by summarizing, without unnecessary controversy, what the Council itself taught on the subject.

Dignitatis Humanae actually begins by setting forth five principles which place its own purposes in the context of the Catholic Tradition (1):

The one true religion subsists in the Catholic Church, to which Our Lord committed the duty of teaching all nations.

All are bound to seek truth, to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it.

“It is upon the human conscience that these obligations fall and exert their binding force.”

Religious freedom relates to immunity from coercion in civil society, and so it “leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion.”

The Council, then, “intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society.”

Then the Council declares its essential teaching:

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits. (2)

There are two important things to note here: First, that men and women are not to be forced to act contrary to their beliefs but, second, that this freedom from coercion is operative only within due limits.

This principle of liberty is advanced simply because duties always entail corresponding rights, and persons cannot discharge their obligation to seek the truth “unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom.” This freedom has its foundation “not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature”. Hence it applies even to those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it. But again, there is a limitation: The exercise of this right “is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed” (2). In other words, “within due limits” includes the observance of “just public order”.

The Council teaches that the reason for religious liberty “is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind.” These acts “transcend by their very nature the order of terrestrial and temporal affairs”. Therefore, government ought to “take account of the religious life of the citizenry and show it favor” but “it would clearly transgress the limits set to its power, were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that are religious” (3).

Among the particular freedoms which the Council enumerates within the general heading of religious liberty are the following (again “provided the just demands of public order are observed”) (4-5):

Religious communities may govern themselves, worship publicly, assist and instruct their members, and promote institutions for ordering their lives in accordance with religious principles.

Religious communities are not to be hindered in selecting, training, appointing, transferring, or communicating with their ministers, or in acquiring funds, purchasing properties or erecting buildings for religious purposes.

Religious communities “also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith”, providing that they themselves refrain from acting in ways that are either coercive or dishonorably persuasive.

Religious communities “should not be prohibited from freely undertaking to show the special value of their doctrine” to society as a whole, and so are free to hold meetings and establish charitable and social organizations “under the impulse of their own religious sense.”

The family in particular has the “right freely to live its own domestic religious life under the guidance of parents,” who have the right to determine “the kind of religious education that their children are to receive.” Government must guarantee and protect this freedom.

Since protection of rights is an essential duty of government, “government is to assume the safeguard of the religious freedom of all its citizens in an effective manner,” and to “help create conditions favorable to the fostering of religious life”. However, if special civil recognition is given to one religious community, the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom must still be recognized and made effective. Government must never violate the freedom and equality of citizens before the law for religious reasons. Finally, it is “a violation of the will of God” when force is brought to bear in any way in order to destroy or repress religion. (6)

Having fleshed out its principle of religious liberty, the Council turns to an explication of the limitations it has already mentioned: “The right to religious freedom is exercised in human society: hence its exercise is subject to certain regulatory norms.” First, all “are bound by the moral law to have respect both for the rights of others and for their own duties toward others and for the common welfare.” Second, “society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion.” Government should follow norms for this purpose which, far from being arbitrary, are drawn from the need to “safeguard the rights of all” and for “peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights”, for “adequate care of genuine public peace”, and from the need “for a proper guardianship of public morality.” (7)

The remaining paragraphs of the Declaration on Religious Freedom constitute a brief reflection on the Church’s insistence that man’s response to God be truly free, and on what we can learn from Revelation and Christ himself about God’s patience, His willingness to allow both the cockle and the wheat to grow until the harvest, His sacrifice as a ransom for us, and His refusal to impose the truth by force. These themes are further developed from the Acts of the Apostles and St. Paul’s letters. (8-12)

Finally, noting that “the freedom of the Church is the fundamental principle in what concerns the relations between the Church and governments and the whole civil order” (13), the Council insists on the necessary harmony between this freedom of the Church and that religious freedom which is the right of all. Enjoining the Christian faithful, “in the formation of their consciences”, to “carefully attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church” (14), the Council concludes by stating the necessity that “religious freedom be everywhere provided with an effective constitutional guarantee and that respect be shown for the high duty and right of man freely to lead his religious life in society.” (15)

 

Jeff Mirus denies the above infallible teaching which says everyone needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church with no exception. It is an error to place the belief in the dogma that everyone needs to be a visible member of the Church in opposition to those being saved with invincible ignorance and baptism of desire.
The formation of ones conscience includes affirming and not rejecting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which is being done in public by Jeffrey Mirus through the report on the Internet Tragic Errors of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

REPORTS INDICATE CDF APPROVED USCCB NOTIFICATION ON FR.PHAN: CONTAINS HERESY BEING WIDELY ACCEPTED BY CATHOLICS

Phrase everybody needs to enter the Church except for those in invincible ignorance contradicts the ex cathedra dogma and also is irrational.

Pope Pius XII in 1949 in the Letter of the Holy office mentioned 'the dogma' the 'infallible teaching' extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So the dogma is not something from medieval times. Pope Pius XII was saying through the Letter issued by Cardinal Ottaviani that all Jews in Boston and the rest of the world need to convert into the Catholic Church with no exception.

So the USCCB Notification on Fr. Peter C. Phan could be heresy if interpreted according to Ecclesia Dei's Mons.Calkins, Catholic Answers, Ignatius Press and in Rome the Jesuit Apostolato di Preghiera, Foyer Unitas Lay Centre, the Legionaries of Christ etc, i.e. thousands of informed Catholics.

When the United States Conference of Catholics Bishops (USCCB) says everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church except for those in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire or blood, it needed to clarify, that they are known only to God. People can be saved in this category but they are unknown to us.

So if they are unknown to us and can be judged only by Jesus the teaching of the 'rigorist interpretation’ the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, is still the official teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Without this clarification the interpretation being used of Vatican Council II and the Catechism would be heresy. With the Clarification Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church is in accord with the ex cathedra dogma. They are in accord with Pope Pius XII's Letter of the Holy Office.

The USCCB was correct in checking Fr. Peter Phan and emphasizing the necessity of the Church for the salvation of all people. However the 'mantra' 'everybody needs to enter the Church EXCEPT for those in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire or blood...' needs to be clarified.

When the Notification was made public reports in the media mentioned it had the approval of the Congregation  for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican.

The ex cathedra dogma is in accord with Church Documents issued by the CDF.

Jesus died for the salvation of all people, however to receive this salvation they need to enter he Church (Dominus Iesus 20).

There is no theology which can say non Catholic religions are paths to salvation. Their members are oriented into the Catholic Church (CDF, Notification, on Fr. Jacques Dupuis S.J 2001)

God the Father wants all people to be united into the Catholic Church, the Church is the only Ark of Noah that saves in the flood. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 845)

So the 'mantra' repeated by Catholics, contradicts these Church Documents and is irrational.

Who among us knows of a case of someone who has received the baptism of desire? I cannot judge who has a good conscience or is in genuine invincible ignorance.

So if we do not know any case (explicitly or implicitly, externally or in principle) then why mention it in the mantra?

It's irrational. It’s a straw man, something that does not exist for us. Catholics can say that as a concept, a probability known only to God a person can be saved in invincible ignorance, with the baptism of desire or blood, or with a conscience Jesus will judge good on the Day of Judgement. However for us it is only hypothetical and not an actuality now; not a reality that we can know of. So we can also say that the Church guided by the Holy Spirit teaches: everyone on earth with no exception needs Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. There are no exceptions ( Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence- Ex cathedra, Letter of the Holy office 1949, Evangelii Nuntiandi of Pope Paul VI, Redemptoris Missio 55, Dominus Iesus 20, CCC 845, CDF Notification on Fr. Jacques Dupuis S.J etc).

In the words of Michael Vorris of Real Catholic TV, there are only Catholics in Heaven. Jesus called the Catholic Church "my church" he said in his  popular show  the Vortex.

"My church"! - Outside of which, I could add, there is no salvation.
____________________________________________________________________________