Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Phillip Pullella and Nicole Winfield have been interpreting Vatican Council II with the Baltimore Catechism error

Immagine correlata
There is a major doctrinal error in the Catholic Church which originated in the Baltimore Catechism(1808) and the Reuters and Associated Press corespondents were not aware of it in their reports on Vatican Council II.
There will be a dramatic change in the understanding of Vatican Council II and Phillip Pullela and Nicole Winfield may not like it. The Left whom they represent will meet the announcement with dismay.
They have been reporting that Vatican Council II has changed Church teachings on other religions and meant that LG 16, NA 2, UR 3 etc have changed the old ecclesiology. They are exceptions, it was believed,  to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) .
They have assumed, like the contemporary Magisterium,that LG 16 etc refer to visible instead of invisible cases for them to be exceptions to 'the old teaching' on salvation.But are they exceptions?
"Zero cases of something cannot be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus" said John Martignoni, the American apologist.
We now know that LG 16, NA 2, UR 3 refer to zero cases in our reality. We cannot meet someone today saved without the baptism of water but with the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood or in invincible ignorance(LG 16) .They are zero cases in our reality and so do not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS , the Fr.Leonard Feeney version.They are not exceptions to the old ecclesiology and of course the traditional understanding of other religions and Christian communities.
 The error originated in the Baltimore Catechism when the explicit-implicit, visible-invisible, concrete-abstract distinction was not made.
The baptism of desire and blood are known only to God in personal cases. They are not visible and known to us. They are not repeatable and real as the baptism of water. So they should not have been mentioned in the section on Baptism in the 1808 Catechism.
It should not have been inferred in the Baltimore Catechism that invisible cases were explicit exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
The confusion was not noticed and it became official in 1949 when the Letter of the Holy Office suggested that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were exceptions to the dogma and so wrongly criticised Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center.Catholic professors were dismissed from Boston College for their traditional beliefs on salvation.
 This irrational reasoning was overlooked and so in Vatican Council II along with passages supporting the the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus there is the reference to being  saved with implicit desire and in invincible ignorance(AG 7, LG 14), as if they are relevant.
So Vatican Council II is interpreted as being a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus because of these 'explicit' cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.
This is also the inference made by the secular media.
Now that we have traced the error to the Baltimore Catechism we know that the secular media was using an irrational premise and inference and if they avoid it then the Vatican Council II is in harmony with the the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Magisterium made a factual error in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.
Vatican Council II is in harmony with the traditionalists (SSPX etc) understanding of other religions and ecumenism.
-Lionel Andrades

The bottom line

Michael Voris and the CMTV Staff repeat the error of the Baltimore Catechism

Immagine correlata
Holy Trinity Seminary does not clarify if they refer to Vatican Council II in which LG 16, LG 8 is visible or invisible
Immagine correlata

When will Fr. Sabino Ardito SDB make an announcement on the Franciscans of the Immaculate doctrinal issue ?


No comments: