Friday, January 29, 2016

Since the Baltimore Catechism said 'the desire'(Council of Trent) was a baptism like the baptism of water Vatican Council II is interpreted as a break with the dogma EENS

Related imageIt was because the Baltimore Catechism said 'the desire'(Council of Trent)  was a baptism like the baptism of water that Vatican Council II  is interpreted as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
We know that the baptism of desire(BOD) is not visible like the baptism of water.
It cannot be given like the baptism of water.
It is not repeatable like the baptism of water.
It does not exist in our reality.
It cannot be an exception to all needing to be formal members of the Church for salvation.It is not an exception to EENS.
Yet liberal theologians today still consider BOD  as being:-
1.visible and physically known like the baptism of water.
2.It can be physically given like the baptism of water.
3.It is repeatable.
4.It exists in our reality.
5.It is an exception to the St.Robert Bellarmine interpretation of EENS.
The theologians go further and re-interpret all references to 'the desire',which have been made  by the popes and saints.They re-interpret them with the above five points.Then the theologians infer that the popes and saints considered BOD an explicit  baptism like the baptism of water.Then they conclude that the saints and popes have said that BOD is an exception to the dogma EENS.
This was the wrong inference, the irrational understanding of the magisterium when Vatican Council II was called.Imagine the confusion for the Council fathers.
They allowed BOD to be mentioned in Vatican Council II as an exception to the Council's  passages which supported the dogma EENS ( AG 7, LG 14).
There are passages which mention hypothetical cases of salvation as if they are relevant to EENS (UR 3, NA 2, LG 16, LG 8 ).
Related imageNow Vatican Council II is interpreted as a break with Tradition because of the irrational premise(visible cases of BOD without the baptism of water) and inference (these visible cases are explicit exceptions to EENS) , which originated in the Baltimore Catechism.The Baltimore innovation, the new doctrine, was made official in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston and then the innovation was placed in Vatican Council II.
So the problem is very real at Vatican Council II.There can be two interpretations of the Council.One is rational and the other irrational.One is Feeneyite and the other is Cushingite.
However, in Vatican Council II, in spite of the superfluous passages,which suggest hypothethical references to salvation are exceptions to EENS, we can avoid the error.We can choose our interpretation.
Just be aware, that hypothethical, theoretical cases,  are just that - hypothetical and theoretical.They are not concrete and objective, like seeing someone being given the baptism of water.
Related imageSo there is no confusion over all needing the baptism of water for salvation.The dogmatic teaching has not been changed if you are using Feeneyism.
There is no change to the traditional ecclesiology on Jews, Muslims and Christians in Vatican Council II.
The magisterium though, made an objective mistake in the Baltimore Catechism, the Boston Case and then Vatican Council II.The flotsam and jetsam, the dead wood passages in Vatican Council II, the mix up between what is invisible and visible,is also there in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257,846).The Catechism did not mention the error.It did not correct it. Though the Catechism (1992) too can be interpreted using the Feeneyite reasoning.
So we affirm that all Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and Christians( non Catholics), need to formally enter the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell, since this is the official teaching in the text of Vatican Council II.
Outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation, there is no salvation.
-Lionel Andrades
Related image
(The insight for the above report was there during Holy Mass in Italian yesterday evening in a church at Primavalle, Rome on the feast day of St. Thomas Aquinas.He is the Italian saint who mentioned the man in the forest , in invincible ignorance, to whom God would send a preacher, if he was to be saved. He did not say that this man in invincible ignorance referred to a personally known case. Though this is  inference is made by theologians who support the Baltimore  Catechism error.)
Vatican Council II is 'hate' without an irrationality used in the interpretation : Fr. James Martin S.J will not affirm this Council

No comments: