Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Cardinal Burke and Fr.John Zuhlsdorf are not speaking with clarity.It needs to be said that all non Catholics are on the way to Hell unless they convert into the Church and Vatican Council II says this. I repeat Vatican Council II says so

Cardinal Burke and Fr.John Zuhlsdorf are not speaking with clarity.They need to say that all non Catholics are on the way to Hell unless they convert into the Church and that Vatican Council II says this. I repeat Vatican Council II says so.
They need to tell all non Catholics that the Church teaches in Vatican Council II, that they need faith and baptism to avoid Hell.This is the teaching of the Church in Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church,the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors, all interpreted with hypothetical cases being hypothetical, with LG 16 being invisible and not visible, with LG 8, UR 3 etc referring to implicit and not explicit cases and NA 2 referring to cases explicit only for God and hypothetical for us humans.
They are not saying it. They are not proclaiming the Faith.
Instead their position on other religions is the same as the liberals and they are wrongly blaming Vatican Council II.
They need to quote Scripture John 3:5 and Mark 16:16.Instead they repeat the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which was repeated in Vatican Council II i.e hypothetical cases are interpreted as not being hypothethical.In other words, for the both of them, there are exceptions to John 3:5 ( all need the baptism of water for salvation) and Mark 16:16( those who do not beleive will be condemned). For both of them there are  exceptions to John 3:5 and Mark 16:16,  since it is assumed there is a personally known case of a catechumen who desired the baptism of water but died before receiving it and is now in Heaven.As if someone could know. Someone could see him in Heaven and on earth.
There is no such case.This was a strawman argument from the very beginning.
The popes and saints  were referring to a hypothetical case just as we do when we say that a person can be saved with perfect contrition, if the Sacrament of Confession was not available.But we do not and cannot know of any such case personally.
The hypothetical cases of baptism of desire(BOD) and blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I),all without the baptism of water, were considered explicit and objectivly known by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. This was a mistake.Cardinal Marchetti Selvaggiani who issued the Letter(1949) mixed up what was invisible as being visible.  Vatican Council has repeated this mistake when it refers to BOD( LG 14) and I.I ( LG 16) with reference to the dogma EENS; with reference to all needing faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7, LG 14).These are 'zero cases' in our reality, so they cannot be 'practical exceptions' to the old ecclesiology based on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
For Cardinal Burke and Fr.John Zuhlsdorf, BOD and I.I refer to explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS and the need for all, with no known exceptions, to have faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7, LG 14). So they both these days cannot clearly say that all non Catholics; all non Christians are on the way to Hell in 2016, unless they die within the Catholic Church, with faith and baptism.
They are part of the confusion in the Catholic Church. Since they have accepted the new theology which has created new doctrines and so has rejected exclusive salvation in the Church.
We have identified the error.Now they can correct it.
They can interpret Vatican Council II by making the transition from explicit for us BOD and I.I to implicit for us BOD and I.I. They can switch from known cases being referred to in LG 16, LG 8, NA 2, UR 3 to unknown cases.They can switch from objectively visible cases being mentioned in LG 16, LG 8, NA 2, UR 3 etc,there present interpretation,  to hypothetical cases for us , which would be objectively known only to God.
Once they make this transition they are still affirming all the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church including Vatican Council II itself,however the interpretation is rational and without the new theology.
They can then clearly announce the Catholic position on other religions, according to magisterial documents, not interpreted with physically seen and known cases of BOD (LG 14), I.I ( LG 16), UR 3, NA 2, LG 8  etc.They would be affirming the old ecclesiology and no one could accuse them of denying Vatican Council II or BOD and I.I.
Once they speak the truth clearly then they can watch the reaction from non Catholics and the political Left.There will be a world wide storn.At the least, it would be an education for non Catholics and a good catechesis for Catholics.Presently the non Catholic view on salvation is not being challenged by Catholics.
Cardinal Burke and Fr.Zuhlsdorf statements and views this week are polite and meaningless. It is as if they are lost and do not have the answers.It is the same with so many Catholic bloggers.
-Lionel Andrades

Fr.John Zuhlsdorf repeats Marchetti's error on the baptism of blood

Fr.John Zuhlsdorf interprets Vatican Council II with Marchetti's theory so the Council for him is ambigous and a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus

May be someone who is in contact with Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider could ask them these two questions and send me their response

Cardinal Burke will not affirm Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.If he did Vatican Council II would not be a break with the dogma EENS according to the 16th century missionaries

No comments: