MISTAKES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II 1
1.LG 14 says only those who know about Jesus and the Church and do not enter are on the way to Hell. In other words not every non Catholic.Since those who are in invincible ignorance are assumed to be known, explicit in real life. They are assumed to be known exceptions of persons saved outside the Church i.e without faith and baptism.
This is false since no one could have physically seen these exceptions and no Church document before the Baltimore Catechism suggests these cases are objectively known.
2.LG 8 ( elements of sanctification and truth), LG 16 ( invincible ignorance), UR 3 ( imperfect communion with the Church), NA 2 etc are ALLhypothetical cases.So they are not relevant or exceptions to the dogma EENS according to the 16th century Jesuit missionaries.So they should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council with reference to orthodox passages on salvation.
3.Similarly it was a mistake for Vatican Council II to mention those who would be saved with the desire for the baptism of water, which they could not receive in life or those who are saved in invincible ignorance.It was a mistake to mention this in LG 14 and AG 14 which have orthodox pasages saying all need faith and baptism. It was a mistake since invisible cases are not relevant or exceptions to all needing faith and baptism for salvation.
It is with these objective mistakes in Vatican Council II , that the contemporary magisterium interprets the Council as a break with EENS. 1
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Why is the baptism of desire and blood mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) in the section on Outside the Church there is no salvation (846)? This was a mistake.
Why did Cardinal Ratzinger say in the Catechism of the Catholic Church(CCC) 1257, ' God is not limited to the Sacraments' ?. Does he know of any exception?
A non Catholic can be saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ( followed by the baptism of water), hypothetically, but we do not know any explicit exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.Does he assume that these cases are visible in the flesh? This is a mistake.He is implying that there is known salvation outside the Catholic Church.Really? Can he name someone in the present times who is saved outside the Church i.e without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14)? 2
The Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of Pope Pius X also made the same mistake. They considered a hypothetical case as being explicit and personally known.Then it is was inferred to be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). It was inferred that the desire for the baptism of water by a catechumen who dies before receiving it was like the baptism of water. It had the same results for them, as if they knew of a particular case.
Since the time of the Baltimore Catechism we see this pattern of error in the Catholic Church. Hypothetical cases are considered objectively known and then are presumed to be exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma EENS.
The 'desire for the baptism of water ', which is theoretical for all of us and 'the catechuman who dies before receiving it', is a hypothetical case.Yet Catholics treat it as if it is objective.
CATECHISM OF POPE SAINT PIUS X
CATECHISM OF POPE PIUS X
27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.
29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation. -Catechism of Pope Pius X, Rome 1905
Being saved with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood or in invincible ignorance refer to invisible cases for us .There should have been no reference to it here.It is not an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.The same error of the Baltimore Catechism has been placed in the Catechism of Pope Pius X.
Abp.Augustine Di Noia like Card. Burke uses subjectivism and known exceptions to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with EENS according to the 16th century missionaries http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/abpaugustine-di-noia-like-cardinal.html
CARDINAL JOSEPH RATZINGER MADE AN OBJECTIVE ERROR IN THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (N.1257)
THE BOSTON HERESY OF THE ARCHBISHOP INFLUENCED VATICAN COUNCIL II AND THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
This error is all over Vatican Councl II and it should be enough for any one to reject the Council if they wanted to :its also there in Amoris Laetitia
I want to read the Catechism of Trent.Too many factual mistakes in other catechisms and Vatican Council II
The Catechism of the Council of Trent is free of the error of assuming hypothetical cases are general exceptions to the traditional moral teachings of the Church: other catechisms have made a mistake
The present two popes are heretical and non traditional since they interpret EENS and Vatican Council II with Cushingism. So Vatican Council II (Cushingite) emerges as a break with EENS ( Feeneyite)
Amoris Laetitiae reflects the confusion and contradictions of the Catechism's liberal moral theology http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/amoris-laetitiae-reflects-confusion-and.html
Lumen Gentium was written assuming 'there are known cases of known salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church'! In this way there was a change in ecclesiology : Magisterial heresy http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/lumen-gentium-16-was-written-assuming.html
APRIL 6, 2016