Conditioned reading of Vatican Council II

It is the same text from Vatican Council II that we both read, but the images in your mind are different from mine. Why does the text produce different images for you and me?

In general most people are conditioned  to read Vatican Council II in a certain way. It's an irrational way.

They have been conditioned by theologians. Also superfluous passages  in Vatican Council II have conditioned them.They have been conditioned by superfluous statements in important Church documents.

Then most of all they have been conditioned by popes and cardinals, the present Magisterium, which has unknowingly accepted this conditioning.

The conditioning has become official over the last 70 years  or so but was there in a subtle way even before this time.

Maybe statements were intentionally placed in Church texts to confuse people at a future time . They made it possible for the Boston Case and the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney who held the traditional teaching on salvation.

Why does the Baltimore Catechism(1885)  refer to being saved with implicit desire/ the baptism of desire(BOD) and martyrdom( Baptism of blood) ? Why was this mentioned in such a prominent way and it also had to be taught to Catholics in the USA ? The Catechism of Trent does not mention it.The Catechism of St.Pius X(1906) mentions it.So this has come into the Catholic Church after 1885.

Then the Letter of the Holy Office of 1949 mentions BOD,BOB and also adds invincible ignorance(I.I).The Letter goes a step further and assumes that these are real cases  and so are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

Not only is Fr.Leonard Feeney to be slandered he is to be excommunicated and even expelled by the Jesuits for saying there is no known BOD, BOD or I.I case saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.So there is no salvation outside the Church.

This is rational for me. I have not picked up the BOD,BOB,I.I conditioning of the past.

Also when I read artcles on Vatican Council II I am aware of the general conditioning.

For example there is a conference paper by Christopher Mwashinga 1 on Vatican Council II and the New Theology and salvation for non Christians.As I read his liberal interpretation of the Council I can see the irrational conditioning.He infers implicit cases; invisible for us cases (NA 2 etc) are explicit and so are a break with traditional EENS.

He is not aware of it and could argue that his reasoning is consistent. Yes his reasoning  would seem consistent  but the premise he uses ( people in Heaven with BOD,BOB and I.I are visible on earth) is irrational.

I do not use his premise and my reasoning too would be consistent.

Similarly there are articles online by the sedevacantist Fr.Anthony Cekada  who uses the same irrational premise as Christopher Mwashinga.His reasoning would seem consistent too.He is not aware of the conditioning that goes back to 1885  with the Baltimore Catechism , as a form of suggestion and then which was made concrete in 1949 with the Pius XII Error.It  resulted in the penalising of Fr.Leonard Feeney.He was penalised  for being consistent with the pre-1885 interpretation of EENS.

So we are all reading the same text of Vatican Council II but with different conclusions because of the different premise and inference.

Clare on Twitter asks me how can the teachings of the Church change ? She thinks the fault is all with Vatican Council II.She is conditioned to think of BOD, BOB and I.I as being explicit, visible in the flesh cases in 2015 . So she infers that these cases are exceptions to EENS.She blames  Vatican Council II instead of her conditioning.

If she breaks her conditioning and sees these cases as only possibilities, hypothetical cases followed by the baptism of water,her interpretation of Vatican Council II changes. It still is the same text of Vatican Council II.Now she would not be using the premise and inference which comes from seeing BOD, BOB and I.I, as objective.
BOD,BOB and I.I can only be hypothetical for us and explicit for God. They can only be theoretical cases for us. 

So break your conditioning.Interpret Vatican Council II in agreement with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS, as it was interpreted in pre-1885 times.

-Lionel Andrades

1

Christopher Mwashinga projects hypothetical cases as being objectively known.This is the basis of the New Theology which he refers to

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/08/christopher-mwashinga-projects.html