John Vennari, Chris Ferrara,John Salza have no comment on Louie Verrechio's irregular marriage nor on how they use a false premise from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.They use the same premise in the Letter and in Vatican Council. They accept the irrational conclusion in the Letter but reject it in Vatican Council II.
Louie Verrecchio speaks at SSPX and the Fatima Network Conferences with John Vennari, John Salza, Cornelia Ferrara and SSPX priests and they have nothing to say on this subject.
EWTN speakers are using the same irrational premise to dismiss the dogma as Vennari, Ferrara and Verrecchio.
For instance they all will accept the Letter of the Holy Office which infers that salvation in Heaven is known and visible on earth and so there are cases of persons dead who are living exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. Where does it say it ? The text does not mention it? Not directly.Though this is implied by the Letter and is accepted in general.
Ask yourself- how could the baptism of desire for instance be an exception to the traditional teaching on salvation by Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center ? It was an exception since it was implied that in 1949 there were exceptions. There were exceptions in 1949 who were saved without the baptism of water and they were known to the Holy Office and the Archbishop of Boston. If there were no such people alive how could there be exceptions? They would have to be known. This is implied.
So this was the inference.The problem is ( we now realize) is that there were no exceptions and there cannot be an exception. Period. 1) Since those saved with the baptism of desire are in Heaven. 2) We also cannot say that any particular person will be saved without the baptism of water.So exceptions are physically not visible.They are humanly not there.
There could not have been exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Impossible. Whatever be Fr.Feeney's theology or opinion on whatever,it is a fact of life that we cannot see persons in Heaven.Nor can we predict that someone will be saved without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.
There being exceptions is the irrational reasoning used to interpret Vatican Council II by John Vennari, Chris Ferrara, John Salza and Louie Verrecchio and other traditionalists.
Here it is. Lumen Gentium 16 refers to those who are saved in invincible ignorance. This is acceptable to the three of them. No problem here. These cases are saved without the baptism of water. It's fine for them. This was the original inference in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. These cases are known in the present times. This is acceptable for them. This was also Marchetti's inference when he issued the Letter in 1949. These cases being known, are now explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is the false conclusion which comes from Cardinal Marchetti. Even this is recognised. However here, since they are exceptions to the dogma they reject LG 16. They reject Vatican Council II.Here there is a turn around.
ONE IS ACCEPTED. THE OTHER REJECTED.
The same irrational reasoning is used with the Marchetti letter and Vatican Council II. In both cases there is a false premise ( the dead are visible on earth) and a false conclusion ( and these living- deceased are explicit exceptions to Tradition and in particular the dogma on salvation).However the Letter is accepted but Vatican Council II is rejected.
Really, it is because the irrational premise and conclusion from the Letter is accepted that Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They overlook this point in their comments on the Council.
AVOID THE PREMISE THE RESULT IS DIFFERENT
Avoid the premise and the result is different. If they did not presume that the dead are visible on earth then LG 16 would not be an exception. There would be no exceptions to the dogma in the Council.
If there are no exceptions to the dogma in the Council ( and there aren't any) then it means Vatican Council II has not changed the traditional interpretation,on other religions and Christian communities. All need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation. UR 3 refers to a possibility but not an exception to the dogma. NA 2, LG 16,LG 8 etc are only possibilities. They are possibilities and are not explicit.Hypoththetical possibilities cannot be defacto exceptions.
So why will they all keep using the false premise ?
If Louie Verrecchio stops using it he would have a different perspective on his marriage. He would also be able to see the Council with a rational perspective.
His commentaries on Vatican Council II are based on those, who like him, use the false premise to reach a non traditional conclusion.
Fr.Nicholas Gruner has only to interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and the Council becomes traditional
All the speakers at the Fatima Mini Conference at Chicago this week to use an irrational inference in the interpetation of Vatican Council II
The two popes like Fr.Nicholas Gruner interpreted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, on salvation, with an irrationality
So Vatican Council II does not contradict itself. The text does not contradict itself unless you infer that what is INVISIBLE for us is VISIBLE