Tuesday, July 24, 2012

DR. JEFF MIRUS DID NOT KNOW THAT NOSTRA AETATE 4, VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS CATHOLICS ARE THE NEW PEOPLE OF GOD: NOW THAT HE IS UPDATED IT IS HOPED HE WILL MENTION IT


Vatican Council II is a pro-SSPX document and all Dr. Jeff Mirus' ‘objections’ mentioned in a recent report (1) are clarified in the Council documents. Firstly, Vatican Council II holds ‘the rigorist interpretation’ of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. However Jeff Mirus believes there are known exceptions to the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance so he assumes the Council rejects the dogma. Ad Gentes 7 says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.

It is based on the traditional interpretation of Vatican Council II that the Society of St.Pius X in the communique last week mentioned there is no possibility of salvation outside the church.You can read Vatican Council II like you can read the Summa of St.Thomas Aquinas.

When the SSPX says that they reject Vatican Council II they mean that they reject Dr. Jeff Mirus’ interpretation. They reject a known to us LG 16 (invincible ignorance/ good conscience).The SSPX must always reject Jeff Mirus’ interpretation.
Does he even want to know, that the baptism of desire is never ever an explicit exception the literal interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney? His report on the Internet for EWTN repeats the error of the visible baptism of desire (2). It seems he can telephone and fax those who are saved with the baptism of desire. Since these extraordinary cases can be contacted , he believes they are exceptions to the dogma on outside the church no salvation as now interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney and the SSPX.
Does he know that Vatican Council II also says Jews at the time of Jesus were responsible for the His death (NA 4) ? Bishop Richard Williamson’s statement on this subject is ‘conciliar’.

For how long out of ignorance or whatever, will he deny Vatican Council II, the dogma extra eclesiam nulla salus, Dominus Iesus 20, the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846, Redemptoris Missio 55 and of course the Bible (John 3:5,Mk:16:16 etc).For a long time that he has been receiving the Eucharist even after being informed .

It would seem that the teachings on the Eucharist have also been changed for him. If you can change the church's teachings on salvation, the teachings on the Eucharist can also change.Non Catholics could receive the Eucharist.

How can he receive the Eucharist? Why do people send him and Catholic Culture donations?The Bible says Jews need to convert. A slow re reading of the Gospel of John is required.

As a Catholic he should have removed the report Tragic Errors of Fr. Leonard Feeney but when he is willing to contradict the Bible regarding the Jews, the factual errors in the report ‘Tragic Errors’, is small. Is he misleading other Catholics because it is in your interest, financial etc  or does he just does not know? What would become of his Trinity Communications if he outright said that Jews need to convert according to the Bible? He would lose his friends in the USCCB? Can you  change the teachings of the Catholic Church just to protect your career or whatever ? There will be no Anti Semitic charge.

After all these years of knowing only the liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II this is going to be difficult for him.He criticizes John Vennari for not accepting an interpretation of the Council, with a version  which is a break from the past. (3) Do John Vennari and Jeff Mirus still do not  know that there can also be a ‘Conciliar thinking’ which is traditional?

The SSPX communique last week mentioning no salvation outside the Catholic Church and no possibility of salvation outside the Church is ‘Conciliar’.

When Archbishop Augustine Di Noia  says Jews do not have to convert in the present times he contradicts Vatican Council II. Nostra Aetate tells  us that Catholics are the new people of God, the Chosen people. Ad Gentes 7 indicates all Jews and other  non Catholics need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. So Di Noia's statement is not 'conciliar'. The SSPX is 'conciliar'. They reject the compromising  'magisterium', and mention the uninterrupted Magisterium, the magisterium of Church-documents to which they are  faithful. This includes the traditional interpretation of  Vatican  Council  II.

How can he claim the SSPX is anti Semitic when they are following Vatican Council II according to Tradition- is the Council anti Semitic? Is Jesus and the New Testament anti Semitic?-Lionel Andrades

No comments: