Thursday, July 5, 2012

Archbishop Augustine Di Noia says the Holy Spirit preserves the Church from error including the interpretation of Vatican Council II- we now know there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, which one is guided by the Holy Spirit ?

Archbishop Augustine Di Noia says that the Holy Spirit preserves the Church from errors including the interpretation of Vatican Council II.We now know that there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II. Which one for him is guided by the Holy Spirit ?

Is the Holy Spirit saying that LG 8 and LG 16 are known exceptions to AG 7 and the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

Can the Holy Spirit make a mistake and assume that LG 16 and 8 are explicit and not implicit, they are explicitly known to God and to us for them to be exceptions?

Does the Holy Spirit in Ad Gentes 7 say that all Jews need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation ? Does this not negate what he has implied in the La Stampa interview about Jews not having to convert? Is this not a contradiction ?

The Church’s deep commitment to reconciliation with the Jewish People is personified today by Benedict XVI says Archbishop Di Noia.

Does this reconciliation mean Jews do not have to convert in the present times ? Is this Vatcian Council II and the teaching of the Holy Spirit ?

Can the Holy Spirit teach before Vatican Council II that Jews need to convert to avoid Hell and then change this teaching after Vatican Council 2 ? Where is the text in Vatican Council II for this claim?

Pope John Paul II gave us the Catechism of the Catholic Chruch which says all need to enter the Church as through a door (N.846). This would also include Jews. Dominus Iesus 20 has the same message. Pope John Paul II in Ecclesia di Eucarestia gave us an ecclesiology of outside the church there is no salvation. Redemptoris Missio 55 says that in inter religious dialogue it must be remembered that the Church is the ordinary means of salvation. So how can those claims be made today by the Archbishop, in the name of Pope John Paul II ?
-Lionel Andrades
_________________________________________

The SSPX doesn’t spare criticism of the Ecumenical Council.

“One cannot state, as they do, that the Ecumenical Council was ‘full of errors’ because this means denying that the Holy Spirit preserves the Church from errors. They must realize that the full communion they are striving for means accepting the truth that the Church cannot be led into error. Through the Holy Father, we hear the voice of Peter, and we know that Peter has spoken to unite the Church. They believe the Council watered down the Church’s mission to non-Catholics. But this is not true. Vatican II documents do not deny the necessity for evangelization.”

WHAT WAS THE THEOLOGICAL LIST GIVEN TO THE SSPX AT THE LAST CDF MEETING ?


Rorate Caeli reported a few weeks back that after the last meeting of Bishop Bernard Fellay,Superior General of the SSPX at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) office with Cardinal William Levada,he was given a big dossier. Later it was learnt that the dossier contained theological points, approved by the pope, which the SSPX was required to accept prior to receiving canonical approval.

The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) has not made the theological list public. The list of conditions could have been prepared by the Secretary of the CDF Cardinal Luiz Levada who is known for his prominent theological errors on the International Theological Commission website.

Knowing that Cardinal Ladaria has no doctrinal basis for many theological conclusions the SSPX should respond to the list. The SSPX-Ladaria-Morerod talks were kept secret perhaps because the Vatican side has new theories with no reference texts from the Council.The SSPX was not saying anything new.So how they be wrong with the traditional teaching.

May be these are some of the points on the list:-

1.If it is said that the SSPX must accept an ecclesiology of communion it should be asked where in Vatican Council II is the text which supports an ecclesiology of communion.

Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.Since LG 8 and LG 16 are not explicit they do not contradict AG 7.

The cardinal has to provide a reference text in Vatican Council II and cannot just refer to ‘the spirit of Vatican Council II’ which could mean anything to different Catholics.

2.If it is said that the SSPX must accept a theology of religions it should be asked where in Vatican Council II is the text to support a theology of religions.

As mentioned above Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of desire.Since LG 8 and LG 16 are not explicit they do not contradict AG 7.Neither do we know who is saved with the seeds of the Word and imperfect communion with the Church.
AG 7 is in accord with the literal interpetation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and there are no known exceptions.

3. If it is said that the SSPX must accept that Jews do not have to convert in the present time it should be asked where in Vatican Council II is the text to support this theory contradicted by AG 7, the Bible (John 3:5,Mk.16:16), the dogma on salvation etc.

4.If it is said that the SSPX must accept that Jews are the Chosen People of God again the SSPX should ask for the reference text from Vatican Council. Since Nostra Aetate 4 says Catholics are the new people of God.

5.If it is said that the SSPX must accept that at the time of Jesus the Jews were not responsible for the death of Jesus it should be said that Nostra Aetate 4 says the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ.
-Lionel Andrades

ARCHBISHOP AUGUSTINE DI NOIA MADE A FACTUAL ERROR IN THE ITC PAPER CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS 1997

Archbishop Augustine di Noia from 1997 to 2002  was a member of the International Theological Commission(ITC). In 1997 they  issued the theological paper Christianity and the World Religions (1) in which they made a glaring objective error. Along with Frs.Luiz Ladaria S.J, Charles Morerod O.P, Augustine Di Noia O.P assumed that those saved in invincible ignorance and implicit desire are known to us and so they are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Then they went a step further and postulated that since we know of these exceptions to the dogma there can also be exceptions for infants who die without  the baptism of water. Instead of Limbo they go straight to Heaven (2). They were supported in these error by Pope Benedict XVI.

Since they assumed that there were known exceptions to the dogma in the ITC papers they approved a 'theology of religions'. Yet in the interview with the National Catholic Register Archbishop Di Noia is critical of the theology of religions.
The ITC paper also approved of an ecclesiology of communion based on the error of known exceptions to the dogma.
It is based on this very error that Bishop Bernard Fellay has probably received a list of theological conditions for the SSPX entry into the Church with canonical status. The SSPX bishops cannot  refute those theological errors, since they also believe that there are known exceptions to the dogma, even though Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did not make this claim. The founder of the SSPX only acknowledged that a non Catholic can be saved in invincible ignorance etc. He did not say that these cases were known to us or were explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

In his recent interview with La Stampa the American Vice President of Ecclesia Dei  now holds the heretical position  that Jews do not have to convert in the present times which is contradictory to the Bible, the Nicene Creed , the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (AG 7). This is also contradicting Dominus Iesus, which he once defended. Dominus Iesus 20 says God's salvation is available for all, it is universal however to receive it the church is necessary. This is also the message of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus defined three times.
The Archbishop vaguely says the Church is necessary but also suggests that there are known exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Chruch.
-Lionel Andrades


1.
Christianity and the World Religions(1997)

2.
 THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED

___________________________________________________


ITC documents 'Christianity and the World Religions' and 'The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptized ' need to be retracted or corrected: Richard Cushing flaw runs through


CARDINAL LEVADA WRITES PREFACE FOR ITC BOOK : IT SAYS THE HOLY OFFICE CORRECTED FR.LEONARD FEENEY FOR DENYING THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE, WHICH IT IS ASSUMED (WRONGLY) CONTRADICTS THE DOGMA

If the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 said that the baptism of desire was an exception to the dogma they made a mistake: So why cannot the Leadership Conference of Women Religious hold the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with implicit baptism of desire ?

Jesuit priest says change in Church’s teaching on Limbo due to change in Church’s teaching on baptism and salvation

JOHN VENNARI DIDN'T NOTICE IT!

There is no reference text in Vatican Council II contrary to the SSPX position on other religions, ecumenism

CONDITIONS FOR THE SSPX TO 'ENTER THE CHURCH'

There could soon be an 'ecclesial rupture' because the Vatican does not want to say that there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II.

VATICAN-SSPX NEED TO CALL TIME OUT: ERROR IN LIGHT OF THE WORLD DIRECTLY LINKED TO DIFFERENCES IN ECUMENISM, INTER-RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE, RELIGIOUS LIBERTY WHICH MSGR.NICOLA BUX MENTIONED

HOLY FATHER ASSUMES THOSE SAVED IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE ARE KNOWN TO US: CONTRADICTS VATICAN COUNCIL I AND II

HOLY FATHER MAKES AN OBJECTIVE ERROR IN WRITING

The Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ says Nostra Aetate 4,Vatican Council II

DID THE POPE REALLY DENY THE FAITH ON THE NEED FOR JEWS TO CONVERT ?

ANIVERSARY OF THE DENIAL OF THE FAITH BY THE MAGISTERIUM ?










 

RORATE CAELI STILL AVOIDS ANY DISCUSSION ON THE ANTI SEMITIC INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II


The Jewish Left are telling the correspondents of Rorate Caeli which of the two  interpretations of Vatican Council II is not anti-Semitic and so is acceptable to them.Rorate Caeli  is not allowed to discuss Vatican Council II in accord with Tradition and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

This is unacceptable to the Rabbi at the Angelicum, and to many others, who phone Rorate Caeli.

Rorate Caeli could not say that Canon 915 should apply to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Prefect (CDF)  and others in the CDF, since they are rejecting an interpretation of Vatican Council II which is in full agreement with the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

They are promoting a version of Vatican Council II which says LG 8 and LG 16 are explcit and so are exceptions to extra eclesiam nulla salus.

They are in public manifest mortal sin, even after being informed, for openly denying the dogma on exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.

To please the Jewish Left they are teaching heresy and are now threathening the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) for not accepting a Vatican Council  II which denies the dogma.

To protect their interests they have accepted that Jews do not have to convert in the present time, they have got rid of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and they are promoting a version of Vatican Council II in which they suggest LG 8 and LG 16 are exceptions to the dogma - as if we can all read the souls of people in other religions, who are saved in Heaven or who have been given saving-grace on earth.-Lionel Andrades

IF THE CDF CHOOSES THE ANTI-SEMITIC INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II- SSPX WILL BE IN THE CHURCH AND DI NOIA, LADARIA AND KOCH COULD BE OUTSIDE

The anti-Semitic version says Lumen Gentium 8 and 16 are explicit only for God while the present interpretation suggests it is explicit also for humans and so we judge these cases.

This interpretation is not anti Semitic. I refer to it as the anti-Semitic interpretation since this is what it is called by some of the Jewish Left. It meets the political anti Semitic criteria even though it may not be anti Semitic. For the Jewish Left even the New Testament is anti Semitic. 

The anti Semitic version has a continuity with Tradition and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The Vatican Council II model approved by Pope Benedict XV is not anti-Semitic and so has the hermeneutic of rupture. It is also an irrational version.It suggests that those who are saved with 'elements of sanctification' (LG 8) and invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) are known to us and so they are known exceptions to the ancient, literal interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation.

So when Edward Pentin in the NCR interview asked Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, Vice President of Ecclesia Dei  about extra ecclesiam nulla salus he said grace is available in other religions ( implying there are known exceptions to the dogma) and that he personally knows saintly Protestants ( who are exceptions to the dogma and who will be saved).

If the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican (CDF) supports and announces the anti-Semitic model of Vatican Council II it would be telling Di Noia that we do not know anyone saved with elements of sanctification ( so LG 8 is not an exception) and only God can know who is saved in invincible ignorance etc( So LG 16 is not an exception). This means all non Catholics, Jews included, are oriented to Hell, unless they convert into the Catholic Church.This  would draw protests from the Jewish Left.

This would be supporting the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) position on other religions, ecumenism etc.It would be supporting traditional ecclesiology.This is the interpretation that the CDF must choose in all honesty and not pretend that there is only one interpretation of Vatican Council II- the false one.

The reality is that Vatican Council II (AG 7) affirms the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and this is our Catholic Faith even though the Jewish Left and their oppressed- supporters in the Vatican may not like it.

The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) would then not be in schism. If  Di Noia, Ladaria and Koch reject this interpretation of Vatican Council II, the only rational one, the only one in continuity with Tradition it is they who would be in heresy. They would be in  schism, in the words of Di Noia in the NCR interview.

Who will be in and who will be out of the Catholic Church ?

Di Noia needs to interpret Vatican Council in accord with Tradition and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,so does the pope. -Lionel Andrades


Wednesday, July 4, 2012
CDF THERE ARE TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF VATICAN COUNCIL II - YOURS IS THE FALSE ONE
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/cdf-there-are-two-intrpretations-of.html#links