The laws of nature, like the laws of reasoning, apply to all.The laws of gravity apply to the two popes and all the cardinals and so does the Principle of Non Contradiction.
The second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was heretical and it violated the Principle of Non Contradiction.It was overlooked by the two popes,cardinals and bishops since then.
A private letter from a cardinal at the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston was used to discard the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) when it stated ' That is why for a person to obtain his salvation, it is not always required that he be de facto incorporated into the Church as a member'.1
This heresy was overlooked in the Catholic Church and so much of Vatican Council II is based upon it.It was so subtle that Cardinal Ottaviani and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did not notice it.
The Letter violated the Principle of Non Contradiction by assuming hypothetical cases like the baptism of desire were explicit,seen in the flesh.
Then after making this error in reasoning it was concluded that these 'explicit' cases; objectively seen cases of the baptism of desire were known exceptions to the dogma EENS.They were allegedly visible and seen in the flesh to be exceptions to EENS.We know that there cannot be any such known case.
Now with authority Catholics quote the popes from Pius XII to Francis and Benedict, on the baptism of desire, when really these popes overlooked an innovation in the Church.They contradicted the Principle of Non Contradiction. So the present magisterium contradicts the pre-Council of Trent magisterium of the Church which did not interpret imaginary cases as being physically visible.
Like the laws of nature, the laws of reasoning also apply to the popes, and it is clear that they have erred.
Either it is because the Church has been infiltrated or there was a simple error an oversight - but an error was made.
So much of Vatican Council II is based on this false reasoning and the Council is re-interpreted with this 'new philosophy'.Imaginary cases are assumed to be concrete.Then they are inferred to be known exceptions in the present time for all to be incorporated into the Church de facto as members for salvation.
So the Council becomes a rupture with Tradition, in particular, the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.
VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT THE ERROR
Once this is clear we can look at Vatican Council II with a new perspective. We do not have to reject it.
Once this is clear we can look at Vatican Council II with a new perspective. We do not have to reject it.
We can interpret Vatican Council II with or without the false premise and conclusion, the choice is always there.
So lets choose the rational option.
First, affirm the orthodox texts in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14- all need faith and baptism for salvation).It is in accord with the dogma EENS ( Feeneyite).Then interpret LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc as referring to non-explicit,imaginary and theoretical cases, accepted in principle in theory.They are speculation with good will. So not being explicit in 2016 they are not exceptions or relevant to the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).Neither are they exceptions to the orthodox passages in Ad Gentes and Lumen Gentium 14( all need to be incorporated into the Church with 'faith and baptism' for salvation).
In this way we eliminate the innovation and Vatican Council II is in harmony with the pre-Councl of Trent magisterium of the Church.
The present and past magisterium could be reconciled with no violation of the Principle of Non Contradiction in the Catholic Church.
1.The SSPX could accept Feeneyite EENS and Vatican Council II and so there would be no hermeneutic of rupture.
2.The Franciscans of the Immaculate could offer the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass and reject Fr.Karl Rahner S.J's new theology, which violates the Principle of Non Contradiction with irrational reasoning.
3.The sedevacantists could become aware of the heresy in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and so affirm traditional Feeneyism, as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.Then Vatican Council II would not be a break with Tradition.
4.The liberals will not be able to cite Vatican Council II as a break with the past.Since there present citations based on the New Theology violates the Principle of Non Contradiction.The Vatican Curia would have to admit its error.This would have to be pointed out to them by those who discern the error.
5.The CDF/ Ecclesia Dei would have to clarify that Cushingism from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is heresy and that Feeneyism is Catholic orthodoxy.
-Lionel Andrades
1.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment