Comments from the blog post Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error 1
Anonymous:
Lionel, you are failing to read the sentence before those you are emphasizing:
"Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament."
Lionel:
Baptism is necessary for every one.
All need faith and baptism says Vatican Council II (AG 7).
The Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water says the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257.
If there is an exception, it would be known only to God.
So why mention something which is unknown to us? This was the error in 1949.
"Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament."
Lionel:
Baptism is necessary for every one.
All need faith and baptism says Vatican Council II (AG 7).
The Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water says the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257.
If there is an exception, it would be known only to God.
So why mention something which is unknown to us? This was the error in 1949.
_______________
Therefore, for any who have NOT had 'the possibility of asking for this sacrament' its effects may be attained through desire.
Lionel:
We do not and cannot know of any such case.
So why was it mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Why was it inferred to be an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma?
The fault was with Cardinal Francesco Marchetti.
He was implying that these cases were examples of known salvation outside the Church and so Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong.
In other words he personally knew of persons saved as such and so they were contradictions to the dogma.
Why mention something which is hypothetical and then also suggest that this case was saved without the baptism of water? How would Cardinal Marchetti know ?___________________
Otherwise, you would deny Beatitude to many saints and prophets of the Old Testament, to mention of a few.
Lionel:
The prophets and saints of the Old Testament who were saved, went to Heaven only after the Resurrection of the awaited Jewish Messiah. Until that time they had to wait in Abraham's Bosom.__________________________
Therefore, for any who have NOT had 'the possibility of asking for this sacrament' its effects may be attained through desire.
Lionel:
We do not and cannot know of any such case.
So why was it mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Why was it inferred to be an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma?
The fault was with Cardinal Francesco Marchetti.
He was implying that these cases were examples of known salvation outside the Church and so Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong.
In other words he personally knew of persons saved as such and so they were contradictions to the dogma.
Why mention something which is hypothetical and then also suggest that this case was saved without the baptism of water? How would Cardinal Marchetti know ?___________________
Otherwise, you would deny Beatitude to many saints and prophets of the Old Testament, to mention of a few.
Lionel:
The prophets and saints of the Old Testament who were saved, went to Heaven only after the Resurrection of the awaited Jewish Messiah. Until that time they had to wait in Abraham's Bosom.__________________________
Anonymous:
Thus, there is no contradiction in what was asserted by Cardinal Burke and Fr. Hardon and others.
Lionel:
Thus, there is no contradiction in what was asserted by Cardinal Burke and Fr. Hardon and others.
Lionel:
Like Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani, Fr.John Hardon assumed that being saved with implicit desire ( and without the baptism of water) or in invincible ignorance, were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma.This is accepted by Cardinal Raymond Burke.
We now know that those who are saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance, allegedly without the baptism of water, are in Heaven. So how can they be explicit exceptions on earth to the strict interpretation of the dogma, it is asked.This was a factual mistake made by Cardinal Burke and the late Fr.John Hardon.Fr.John Hardon also assumed that the Church Fathers and Church documents before 1949 tell us that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma. There is no such magisterial document before 1949. They only refer to persons being saved with implicit desire or in inculpable ignorance. They do not tell us that these cases are known to us.Nor is it said that they are explicit exceptions to the dogma. This has to be inferred- wrongly. Fr.Hardon like Cardinal Marchetti makes this wrong inference in the article.
Fr.John Hardon also assumed that the Church Fathers and Church documents before 1949 tell us that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma. There is no such magisterial document before 1949. They only refer to persons being saved with implicit desire or in inculpable ignorance. They do not tell us that these cases are known to us.Nor is it said that they are explicit exceptions to the dogma. This has to be inferred- wrongly. Fr.Hardon like Cardinal Marchetti makes this wrong inference in the article.Cardinal Raymond Burke approved the article. -Lionel Andrades
Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/cardinal-raymond-burke-approved-fr-john.html
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/cardinal-raymond-burke-approved-fr-john.html
What was Fr. Hardons error that Cardinal Burke approved?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/what-was-fr-hardons-error-that-cardinal.html
Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Mass
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/cardinal-raymond-burke-interprets.html
Rome made a mistake in 1949 and Fr.John Hardon did not notice it
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/rome-made-mistake-in-1949-and-frjohn_3.html
The Catechumen you refer to is a hypothetical case for you and me. So it is not an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : Fr.John Hardon too did not notice this. http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/the-catechuman-you-refer-to-is.html
For Cardinal Raymond Burke these hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/for-cardinal-raymond-burke-these.html
March for Life 2015 : double standards
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/march-for-life-2015-double-standards.html
March for Life : double standard of participants
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/march-for-life-double-standards-of.html
VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS
1
March 4, 2015
Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error
Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error