Saturday, February 20, 2016

A factual error in Vatican Council II

Related image
No one in the past could have seen someone in Heaven without the baptism of water.At least the Church does not recognise anyone with this mystical gift.
None of us in 2016 knew of a baptism of desire(BOD) or invincible ignorance (I.I)  case.Someone in Heaven without the baptism of water.
So no theologian could say St.Emerentiana or St. Victor went to Heaven with the BOD in the Catholic Church and are there without 'the laver of regeneration', the baptism of water.
None of us can see anyone saved with the baptism of desire.Neither did Church Fathers claim  these cases  were physically visible.So there was no way cardinals and bishops in 1949, saw someone in Heaven who did not need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church.
The Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Richard Cushing did not know too of a BOD case. He did not know of an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Similarly no one at the 1949 Holy Office in Rome could say they knew of someone saved without the baptism of water.Nether could Pope Pius XII make this claim.

The baptism of desire which Pope Pius XII  referred to was  hypothetical.The catechuman who desired this baptism of water and died before receiving it was a hypothetical case.
So when it is said that the BOD has the same result as the baptism of water ( Baltimore Catechism) it is a reference to a hypothetical case.So at Baltimore the bishops speculated.
Similarly when the Council of Trent refers to 'the desiretherof'  it is hypothetical speculation. They were also probably responding to a campaign by Freemasons and others who wanted to eliminate the dogma EENS and so were postulating exceptions.
If there was some one saved with 'the desiretherof', this person  would be Heaven and would be unknown to humans on earth.
So when the magisterium criticised Fr.Leonard Feeney  for not accepting exceptions  to the dogma EENS, where are these exceptions? What are their names and surnames? 
Can there really be exceptions?
 No. Since hypothetical cases cannot be objective. Objectively speaking there cannot be known exceptions.

Related image
'Zero cases of something are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ' says the apologist John Martignoni.
Rev. Fr.P. Stefano Visintin OSB, Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Pontifical University St.Anselm, Rome says all non Catholics need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no known exceptions.This is the teaching of the Catholic Church.
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are possibilities, he said, but are not known exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation.1
So they made an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.Since they considered BOD and being saved in I.I as being exceptions.
It is a fact of life that we cannot see people in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire with or without the baptism of water.
It is a fact of life that we cannot see or know any exception to EENS. This is common sense.Many priests in Rome agree with me.2 They say the baptism of desire was not an exception to the Feeneyite intepretation of EENS.
Yet the popular new theology in the USA in 1949  was based on this factual error ( being able to see people in Heaven without the baptism of water).It was based on an objective error ( these deceased-saved were physically visible). So there was an irrational inference ( these dead-saved now physically seen, are exceptions to EENS and examples of salvation outside the Church).So the conclusion was Vatican Council II was a break with Tradition,with the old exclusivist ecclesiology (all outside the Church are going to Hell with no exceptions).This is the dead man walking and visible theory. It is theology based on fantasy.
This irrational thinking was magisterial.No pope corrected it from Pius XII to Paul VI.The error was placed in Vatican Council II.
The error is placed directly in Lumen Gentium 14 and indirectly in LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, AG 11 ( seeds of the Word etc).
From 1949 to 1965 Catholics were officially informed that being saved in invincible ignorance, referred to not hypothetical cases but explicit cases, objectively seen and known.LG 16 suggests only those persons need to enter the Church ,'who know' about it and are not in ignorance.Those who were in ignorance about Jesus and the Church were exceptions to EENS, for Rome.They had not lifted the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney in 1965.This consolidated the irrational new doctrine.
This was a break with the three Church Councils which defined EENS and did not mention BOD and I.I. Since obviously hypothetical cases cannot be exceptions to EENS.
For Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits at Vatican Council II however hypothetical cases were exceptions to EENS.So they inserted passages which were irrelevant to EENS e.g UR 3, LG 16, LG 8,NA 2, AG 11 etc.The error is now innocently accepted by good people all over the world.
Today morning after the 9 a.m Mass in Italian at the church  Santa Maria Ianua Coeli in Montespaccato, via  Cornelia, Rome I spoke briefly with Fr.Jerome.He is the young priest in a Marian religious community who had offered the Mass.He said the Church no longer affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since a person could be saved in invincible ignorance etc.
He accepted the irrational theology and new doctrine and he was not aware of the factual error in Vatcian Council II.
-Lionel Andrades


July 18, 2014
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson contradicts USCCB : the baptism of desire is not visible to us and so is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors

Implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martignoni

If one says there are exceptions to something then it is implied that something must exist to be an exception. This is common knowledge.

There is an objective mistake in Vatican Council

No comments: