Sunday, November 16, 2014

Did Vatican Council make a factual error ?


There was a factual error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.It inferred that implicit desire (baptism of desire) and being saved in invincible ignorance are known and visible to us in the present times (1949).So it was concluded in 1949 that there were explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The dead who are now saved in Heaven were assumed to be explicit on earth. Yet it is a fact of life that we cannot see those saved in Heaven this year (2014).They are known only to God.To be an exception something or someone must exist in our reality and be different from what it is compared to.Those persons saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance do not exist in our reality.We do not even know if these cases are saved with the baptism of desire or without it.The text does not mention it.One can infer for example that a non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience (LG 16)  is saved without the baptism of water or followed by the baptism of water in a way known only to God.So firstly we do not know who these cases are in particular and secondly, if they are saved with or without the baptism of water.
However, either way, the baptism of desire with or without the baptism of water is not known to us, it is not visible on earth in personal cases in 2014. It cannot be seen. It cannot be repeated as with the baptism of water. It is not tangible.So the baptism of desire etc are fundamentally irrelevant to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.It is irrelevant and not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This was the fundamental error overlooked by Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston, and the Jesuits, who were active at Vatican Council II.
All over Vatican Council II in so many passages we are allowed to infer that the dead now in Heaven, are  visible and known to us .So it is concluded that these are explicit , visible in the flesh exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius  X.The wrong inference can be made at AG7,AG 11,LG 11,UR 3,NA 2...
Here is Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II.
 
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. -Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II

So there can be an irrational or rational inference of Ad Gentes 7
A.
'Therefore all must be converted to Him to whom is is made known by the Church's preaching and who are visible and known to us on earth.As compared to all in general with Original Sin
B.
Therefore all must be converted to Him made known by the Church's preaching ( these cases being  obviously known only to God and unknown to us).
The inference in A is based on a factual error.It assumes invisible for us cases are known in the present times.Then it is inferred that these unknown cases, being explicit, are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The Vatican Curia is interpreting Vatican Council II with the factual error (A).Bishop Marcello Semeraro, the bishop of Albano, is doing the same . He wants the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II with this irrational inference.
I reject the Council with the irrational inference which results in a break with the past.This cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit.
For me, Ad Gentes 7, is in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The phrase 'made known by the Church's preaching ' refers to someone known only to God. To infer that 'made known by the Church's preaching' is relevant  and an exception to the dogma on salvation and Tradition  in 2014, is irrational.
I do not want to reject the Council.I want to accept Vatican Council II aware that the Cushingite mistake can be avoided in the interpretation of LG 16,LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 etc.For me they (LG 16,LG 8 etc)  refer to possibilities  known only to God.They are not exceptions to the dogma.Also those who are saved as such, are saved followed by the baptism of water. 
All who are in Heaven are Catholics.There are only Catholics in Heaven.They have Catholic Faith and were baptized with water.If they were in invincible ignorance God would have sent sent a preacher to instruct them and batize them with water ( St.Thomas Aquinas).If they died without the baptism of water,God would send them back to earth only to be baptized with water (St.Francis Xavier).
So there are passages in Vatican Council II which are orthodox and there are passages which seem ambiguous but which are not. They are ambiguous because they are being interpreted with an irrational premise.This irrational thinking comes from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case.

Did Vatican Council II make a factual error ? No.Since even though there is text in Vatican Council II, which comes from  a factual error in the Letter of the Holy Office, we can accept  that this text refers to possibilities and not defacto cases, known in the present times.So they are irrelevant to the dogma and are not exceptions to Tradition.
-Lionel Andrades
_________________________________

Popes have not checked this objective error. It is a fact of life that we cannot see the dead who are now in Heaven.
Is Bishop Semeraro willing to accept Vatican Council II in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? : SSPX has still to ask

This new theology http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/this-new-theology.html


Vatican Council II is traditional when salvation is understood to be physically invisible for us on earth: no problem for incardination among traditionalist priests http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/vatican-council-ii-is-traditional-when.html
Fr.Nicholas Gruner can ask the pope and the Vatican Curia, in a fresh complaint, to also affirm Vatican Council II in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus as he does http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/frgruner-can-ask-pope-and-vatican-curia.html
 
Being saved in invincible ignorance has nothing to do with the dogma
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/being-saved-in-invincible-ignorance-has.html
The ecclesiology of Pope Francis and Cardinal Kaspar is based on the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Vatican II indicates all Muslims and other non Catholics are on the way to Hell since they do not have Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (Ad Gentes 7).
Cardinal Raymond Burke and Fr.Nicholas Gruner affirm the same error as do the liberals http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/cardinal-raymond-burke-and-frnicholas.html
Cardinal Raymond Burke has still not identified the false premise, the irrational inference which is the cause of 'the spirit of Vatican Council II'
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/cardinal-raymond-burke-has-still-not.html
It is my right ( and yours too) to not use an irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, as do the Bologna School
All the speakers at the Fatima Mini Conference at Chicago this week to use an irrational inference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II
Fr.Nicholas Gruner has only to interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and the Council becomes traditional
Why did Fr.Nicholas Gruner not just tell the pope that there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
So if 'the Church' says that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma then where are these people who belong to the soul or body of the Church in 2014? Where are they? What are their names and surnames?
I think ‘the dogma of the faith’ was lost in 1949 at Boston in the Fr.Leonard Feeney Case http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/in-think-dogma-of-faith-was-lost-in.ht
John Vennari, Cardinal Kaspar and so many others are misinterpreting these Church documents and then repeating the error in Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/john-vennari-cardinal-kaspar-and-so.html
Cardinal Kaspar,John Vennari and Louie Verrecchio make the Council ambiguous
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/cardinal-kasparjohn-vennari-and-louie.html
 
Bishop Athanasius Schneider makes the same error as John Vennari and Louie Verrechio http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/bishop-athanasius-schneider-makes-same.html
John Vennari, Louie Verrecchio repeat the same error
In faith he assumes there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In morals he assumes there are known exceptions to mortal sin
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/in-faith-he-assumes-there-are-known.html