Saturday, November 5, 2016

So this is why Vatican Council II for you is a rupture with Tradtiion. It is a rupture with St. Ignatius of Antoich because of the false premise, the irrational premise

And to be honest, Lionel, I cannot determine if 
you are buying into the notion that heterodox
 innovations emanating from Vat II trump previous 
Church teaching, or if you are merely drawing
 attention to these subversive innovations.
The heterodox innovations that you
 see in Vatican Council II are the 
results of using an irrational
 premise and conclusion.Avoid
 it and Vatican Council II emerges
The SSPX Asia for example cites:-

Saint Ignatius of Antioch: "Do not deceive
 yourselves, he who adheres to the author of a 
schism will not possess the kingdom of God."
 [Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3 (CH 158)].

Saint Cyprianus: "Whosoever is separated from
 the Church is united to an adulteress. He has
 cut himself off from the promises of the Church,
 and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot
 arrive at the rewards of Christ (...) He who observes
 not this unity observes not the law of God, holds
not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not
 to life and salvation." [De Cath. Eccl. Unitate, n
 6 (CH 555)].
Saint Augustine and the Council of Cirta (412 
A.D.): "He who is separated from the body of
the Catholic Church, however laudable his
conduct may otherwise seem, will never enjoy
 eternal life, and the anger of God remains on
 him by reason of the crime of which he is
guilty in living separated from Christ." [Epist.
 141 (CH 158)].
Saint Gregory the Great: "The holy universal
Church teaches that God cannot be truly adored
 except within its fold; she affirms that all those
 who are separated from her will not be saved."
 [Moral. in Job. XIV,5 (CH 158)].
Innocent III and the Fourth Ecumenical Council 
of the Lateran (1215 A.D.): "There is only
one universal Church of the faithful, outside of
 which no one can be saved." [Cap. I; De fide
cath.; DS 802 (CH 159)].
"The same teaching is expressed in the professions
 of faith which have been proposed of by the
 Apostolic See; in the one which all the Latin
 Churches use (2); as also in the others, one which
 is received by the Greeks (3), and the other by
 all other Eastern Catholics" (4). [Pope Gregory
 XVI: Encyclical Summo jugiter, May 27, 1832
 to the Bishops of Bavaria (CH 159)].
So far good. This is orthodoxy.
Then the SSPX Asia cites 
the Letter of the Holy Office.
[Letter of the S.C. of the H. Office, Aug. 8, 
1949 to the Archbishop of Boston (CH 1256-7)].
The Letter has used the 
irrational premise ( baptism 
of desire cases are visible 
and known in the present
 times-1949) and irrational 
conclusion( and so these
 invisible visible cases are
 exceptions to the dogma 
EENS as it was known to 
Saint Ignatius of Antioch
 etc.quoted above)
You see the error?
The SSPX Asia contradicts
 itself.It has mixed up what 
is invisible as being 
visible, what is hypothetical
 as being practical exceptions
 to EENS.
This is an objective error. 
It is not just theology.
It cites the traditional 
interpretation of the dogma
 EENS which says there are
 no excepton and then it 
considers the baptism of 
desire etc as being an exception.

Similarly for you and the 
SSPX would assume that
 Lumen Gentium 16 
(invincible ignorance)
 would be an exception
 to St. Ignatius of Antioch
 and the others quaoted above?
So this is why Vatican Council 
II for you is a rupture with 
Tradtiion. It is a rupture with
 St. Ignatius of Antoich because
 of the false premise, 
the irrational premise.
-Lionel Andrades

No comments: