Friday, October 21, 2016

Atila S. Guimarães was ignorant of all this when he wrote his book

In the Murky Waters of Vatican II: Guimaraes, Atila S.I read the book In the Murky Waters if Vatican Council II by Atila S. Guimarães  a long time back. I was impressed.
Now though I realize that Guimarães had been wrong all long.
He did not know of the  irrationality in the new theology.He used it to interpret Vatican Council II.He did not know the source of the error.So he was unaware of how he was using the same irrational theology to interpret Vatican Council II.It was the same theology used by the liberal theologians whom he criticizes in the book.
He did he know that could avoid the irrationality.Then  he would have to revert to the old theology to interpret the Council.The conclusion, of course,  would be traditional.
It is the same Council text before him and me .I am aware of the mistake of the magisterium in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and how the Masons and the ecclesiastics consolidated that mistake in Vatican Council II.This was amid confusion in the Church with the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney still not lifted.
Unlike Atila S. Guimarães I do not assume hypothetical cases are physically visible exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS and if they are not physically seen and known then where are the exceptions? There are none.
 So for me, Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 and 16, when they mention being saved in invincible ignorance or the catechumen with the desire for the baptism of water, refer to a hypothetical case. So they are not exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on no salvation outside the Church.
I do not mix up what is invisible as being visible.Atila S. Guimarães  does just this.
I do not consider what is subjective and implict as being objective.It is with this error that Atila S. Guimarães,the author, looks at Lumen Gentium 16 etc.
So with an irrational premise ( visible cases of the baptism of desire) the interpretation of Vatican Council II will produce an irrational conclusion( Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition, it is a break with the Syllabus of Errors and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus).
This is false.
The Council is not a  rupture with Tradition.It is the theology and the irrational philosophical reasoning, which makes the Council a rupture with Tradition.
For me Vatican Council II presents no exceptions to the old ecclesiology.The Council II  is traditional.
Though there is a mistake in Vatican Council II. Lumen Gentium 14 suggests only those 'who know' need to enter the Church and not all people. This error comes from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The Letter assumes that there are known cases of people saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water.So being saved in invincible ignorance was an exception to the dogma EENS for some of the Council Fathers.So they mentioned it.
It was an exception for Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston, who had placed restrictions on Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.He was active at Vatican Council II with the U.S Jesuits.
Inspite of this error( mentioning being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire with reference to all needing faith and baptism for salvation) Lumen Gentium 14 still refers to a hypothetical case. So it is not a rupture with Feeneyite EENS or the Syllabus of Errors.
Atila S. Guimarães was ignorant of all this when he wrote his book.Of course he was correct, Vatican Council II interpreted with the Cushingite irrationality is a rupture with Tradition and this version of Vatican Council II has to be rejected.
-Lionel Andrades

Atila S. Guimarães made a mistake in the interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus : with the same irrational reasoning Vatican Council II emerges as a break with Tradition for him 

No comments: