Monday, October 17, 2016

Mundabor is still having a problem with Vatican Council (Cushingism) and is not aware of an alternative interpretation

Mundabor on his blog is still having a problem with Vatican Council II.
A few weeks back he had a blog post titled  Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus  in which he  said that when he meets a non Catholic it cannot be judged that the person is on the way to Hell.
This is a clue for me. It is for sure that Mundabor has a problem with Vatican Council II.Mundabor considers Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.Discerning liberals must be laughing to themself.
When  I meet a non Catholic I know that he or she is on the way to Hell since the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus says so. Also the Catechism of Pope Pius X repeats the same message.Similarly Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism for salvation.So explicit membership in the Catholic Church is the norm.The baptism of desire is not the norm.The ordinary means of salvation is being incorporated into the Church as a member.In 2016 we cannot meet someone saved with the baptism of desire.

But for Mundabor the baptism of desire is an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS, so the baptism of desire must be explicit in 2016.All hypothetical cases referred to in Vatican Council II (NA 2, LG 8 etc) are explicit and objective for Mundabor.I have pointed out this error to him so many times.He does not post my comments.Nor  does he comment.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston made an objective mistake and this is hard for the traditionalists to accept.The Letter inferred, wrongly, that an invisible case was visible and Mundabor has accepted this.The SSPX has accepted it too.
Everyone knows that the baptism of desire is not explicitly seen and it refers to a possibility, a hypothetical case.This is something obvious.Mundabor would know this too.But how how can he say that Pope Pius XII made a mistake?.
Mundabor knows that I have an Archbishop, a Dean of Theology at a pontifical university in Rome, numerous priests and a well known lay Catholic apologist who have said that there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and that the baptism of desire is not an exception.No comment from him!
I affirm EENS and the baptism of desire.I assume EENS refers to the need for all to be physically incorporated into the Church since there cannot be any exception. I affirm the baptism of desire which is hypothetical.It is not an exception to EENS. So I affirm EENS without rejecting the baptism of desire.
With this reasoning the entire interpretation of Vatican Council II changes.-Lionel Andrades

If Francis were to die tomorrow, and were to be replaced by a “safe V II” Pope, what would be the consequence? What would a hypothetical JP III do that would prevent, one day, the election of a Francis II? Nothing, absolutely nothing! We would have more V II rubbish; which, in time, would unavoidably lead to the appointment of a faithless, lewd old man like Francis. A new, “moderate” V II Pope would mean more World Youth Day, more Assisi gatherings, more ecumenism, more pacifism, more search for easy popularity, more Korans thankfully accepted as gift, more pope concerts and mega-masses, more watering down of truth, more of all we have seen from John XXIII until 2013. The slippery slope that begins with a John XXIII must perforce end with a Francis, or worse.
No, I don't think the Lord will save us from the worst. It seems to me that this is not God's plan. It seems to me that the savage arrogance of V II must now be paid in full. It seems to me, in other words, that the absolutely lunatic times the Evil Clown is preparing for us are allowed by God to show us the utter lunacy of the rebellion of V II. Unless we are made to eat all the excrements that Francis and, very probably, his successors will dish us we will never understand the monstrosity of Vatican II in the first place.-Mundabor

No comments: