There is an objective mistake in Vatican Council II and the catechisms : the Feeneyites were always correct.

 

There is an objective mistake in Vatican Council II and the catechisms : the Feeneyites were always correct on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Amoris Laetitia(AL) continues with the factual error in the catechisms after the Catechism of the Council of Trent.The error is also there in Vatican Council II I mentioned in a previous blog  post.

KNOWN CASES OF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE

The  Baltimore Catechism assumes that the desire for the baptism of water by an unknown catechumen who dies before receiving it, was a baptism.It was like the baptism of water, with the results of the baptism of water.The Feeneyites are correct. There is no known such case in 2016. We cannot meet or see someone who will be saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

The baptism of desire was placed in the Baptism ( of water) Section of the Catechism.No one in Baltimore could have seen such a case. Yet it was made a baptism like the baptism of water.

The mistake was then repeated in the Catechism of Pius X.

THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS EXPLICIT AND NOT HYPOTHETICAL
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 would assume there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). It would suppose that the baptism of desire would not be a hypothetical case, but a known case.This was an objective error. The Feeneyites were correct and the Holy Office was wrong in 1949. They made a factual mistake.

LG 14 EXPLICIT CASES OF PERSONS SAVED IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE

This mistake would be repeated in Vatican Council II (LG 14) . Since being saved in invincible ignorance, without the baptism of water was assumed to be explicit and an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).So  Lumen Gentium  14 says not every one needs to enter the Church but only those who know i.e those who are not in invincible ignorance and saved without the baptism of water.Vatican Council II made a mistake. The Feeenyites were correct. LG 14 could not be an exception to their 'rigorist' interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation.

CATECHISM MENTIONS IRRELEVANT BAPTISM OF DESIRE

The Catechism of the Catholic Church(1992) repeats the error in 846 and 1257. It also assumes hypothetical cases are exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation.There can be no exceptions known to us human beings to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.We have an error in the Catechism of Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Schonborn.

OBJECTIVE ERROR:INVISIBLE CASES ARE VISIBLE

So we have an objective error in Amoris Laetitia.We cannot physically see or know an exception to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.

We have an objective error in the Baltimore, Pius X and the 1992 Catechism since there are no known cases of the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire was not relevant to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation.It should not have been mentioned.

We have the same objective error in Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7). There are no exceptions to all needing ' faith and baptism' for salvation. Being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire are not visible and known in our reality. So they are not relevant to all needing faith and baptism in the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.They should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council II.

The Feeneyites are still correct.

-Lionel Andrades

 

 

Amoris Laetitia (AL) continues with the factual error in the catechisms after the Catechism of the Council of Trent.The error is also there in Vatican Council II.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/amoris-laetitia-al-continues-with_3.html