Friday, June 10, 2016

Boniface does not say that Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made a mistake, like he does in philosophy ( irrational premise and reasoning) and theology ( new theology based on the irrational premise and conclusion)

Unam Sanctam Catholicam
Every blog has their trolls. I've never done this before, but I had to call mine out.|Di Boniface

Classic Catholic haha! So stupid! Why has he not gotten the hint already? haha!
Kevin Dolan
Kevin Dolan What I can't believe is just how many years it's gone on for. Clearly some people have no lives whatsoever.
Andrew McGovern
Andrew McGovern So he will spam this one too I guess.

This was the original report, which I sent Boniface.He still has not disagreed with me theologically or doctrinally. He does not comment. So I could assume he agrees with me.

  • Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made an objective mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II

He will not comment though.He will not say that Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Archbishop Augustine di Noia and Bishop Bernard Fellay made a factual mistake. They mistook hypothetical cases as being objectively known. They then assumed that these cases were explicit exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church to avoid Hell.

This is subjectivism. It is with subjectivism that the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) has been done away with officially. The contemporary magisterìum has been so successful that they used this ruse in Pope Francis'  exhortation Amoris Laetitia, with reference to moral theology.

So Boniface attends the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, with subjectivism in salvation theology.

If Boniface does consider Muller, Di Noia and Fellay assumed hypothetical cases are objective exceptions to EENS and if he affirms this in public, then he would have to change his position on the Hermeneutic of Continuity.1.

If he would say that Muller, Di Noia and Fellay assumed theoretical cases were relevant to EENS as an exception, then he would be saying that Mons.Clifford Fenton also made the same mistake.SInce he accepted the baptism of desire as relevant to EENS.2. 

If he could see that these three respected religious leaders are making the same error as the popes then he would be able to say that the popes from Pope Pius XII to Pope Francis have made an objective mistake.For him Pope Francis has said other things which are not acceptable.3

So to really comment on my blog post, philosophically and theologically,would  mean having to change his position on the baptism of desire, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Vatican Council II, Social Reign of Christ the King...He would have to admit that his  philosophical reasoning was in error like that of Muller, Di Noia and Fellay.

In his address on Pentecost ( See Video below from Unam Sanctam Catholicam, Facebook) he affirms in general, the necessity for all to enter the Church.However in the same video theologically he contradicts himself.Since he considers being saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire etc, as being relevant to the dogma EENS. This was the mistake made by the apologists Mngr.Fenton. Fr.William Most and Fr.John Hardon.

It is like Michael Voris on a Vortex program saying that Church is necessary for salvation( and he believes this sincerely) but every one does not need to be a card carrying member of the Church. He meant theologically a person could be saved with the baptism of desire etc, since they are explicit exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.
Similarly Christine Niles when hosting a good  Mic'd Up program on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus affirmed the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.She did not speak about the the objective error in the second part of the Letter.She was interpreting EENS like Muller,Di Noia and Fellay.

I have been pointing this out to Boniface for years.The only way I can do it is through comments on his blog, hoping he will begin to discuss this issue.
Now instead of saying Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made a mistake, like he does in philosophy ( irrational premise and reasoning) and theology ( new theology based on the irrational premise and conclusion), he considers me a nuisance.-Lionel Andrades


Steve Cunningham


Unam Sanctam Catholicam When he says something seriously definitive, I will pay attention. But I am not going to hang on every word that he spews, either for good or for ill. Not everything the pope says is the papal magisterium, so as far as I'm concerned, I'm turning him off until he says something I need to pay attention to.


The issue is how does Boniface interpret Vatican Council II-with Cushingism or Feeneyism  

Unam Sanctam Catholicam

Bishop Fellay made a mistake and Boniface on the blog Unam Sanctam Catholicam has nothing to say in his defense:agrees Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Augustine di Noia also made an objective error

No comments: