The Lutheran Pope: Ecu-Maniacs in Sweden
It is often said that the Church has always taught the baptism of desire(BOD) as if I am rejecting it.I am saying that BOD is irrelevant to EENS, it was always irrelevant to EENS. So I do not have to reject it.I am not rejecting the BOD.I am saying that the BOD was always an INVISIBLE CASE.An invisible case cannot be an exception to EENS in for example 1949, 1960-65 or 2016.Someone has to be alive and seen and different to be an exception to EENS.So if you also believe that the BOD must exist without the baptism of water and I say it must include the baptism of water, it still makes no difference, relative to the dogma EENS.Since either way it still does not exist in our reality for it to be an exception to Feeneyite EENS.BOD has no connection with EENS.
The liberal theologians in Boston; the Jesuits, made the connection. Then they repeated the error in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14).BOD and I.I (invincible ignorance) were mentioned alongside orthodox passages which support the dogma EENS, e.g 'all need faith and baptism' for salvation(AG 7).
In principle they assumed invisible and hypothetical cases are exceptions to EENS so they extended the possibilities to ' a ray of that Truth'(NA 2), 'imperfect communion with the Church'(UR3),'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8), 'seeds of the Word'(AG 11) etc.
This means the NIcene Creed has been changed.The Nicene Creed refers to only one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Now we have so many possibilities of being saved and sins forgiven without the baptism of water.
This has created the 'ambiguities' in Vatican Council II.
So now we know from where the ambiguities in Vatican Council II have come from.It is there when:-
1) We assume hypothetical cases are exceptions in 2016 to the dogma EENS,examples are Lumen Gentium 16( invincible ignorance) ,Lumen Gentium 8 (elements of sanctification and truth' etc.
2.We assume invisible cases are visible in 2016 e.g LG 16, LG 8 etc.
So if we do not make this error then:-
2.Vatican Council II would not be a rupture with Tradition. It would mean that Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston, the Jesuits there and the Holy Office(CDF) in Rome made an error and Fr. Leonard Feeney was not saying anything new.He was affirming the centuries-old interpretation of EENS. The magisterium made the mistake. The magisterium today(CDF) was once asked by Bishop Bernard Fellay, to point out the innovation in Vatican Council II. This was a few years back. Here it is! We now have it.It is simple.It was always there before my very eyes but I could not see it too. We are back to the traditional Catholic doctrine on salvation. This is a doctrinal issue and the cardinals and bishops must affirm it. Cardinals and bishops can no longer interpret Vatican Council II with a doctrinal error.They have to re-interpret Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases just being hypothetical.We are back to the traditional Catholic doctrine on salvation.
TIM SEBASTIAN' DOCTRINAL CHANGES'
A few months back Tim Sebastian interviewed Bishop Fellay and then interpreted Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and conclusion.So he refers to 'the church's doctrinal changes introduced by the Second Vatican Council'.This is false.There are no doctrinal changes.It is the cardinal and bishops who need to point this out by affirming Feeneyite EENS and showing that there cannot be exceptions:So there cannot be doctrinal changes.
Reuters and Associated Press describe Vatican Council II as ' a revolution' in the Catholic Church.This is not true if invisible cases are simply considered invisible.Cardinals and bishops must point this out to the anti-Catholic leftist media.Cardinal Raymond Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider must comment on this.
1.Can there be two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one with invisible cases being invisible and the other with invisible cases being visible?
2.Should we not choose to interpret Vatican Council II with invisible cases being invisible?
3. Is this not a doctrinal issue?
Bishop Bernard Fellay and Bishop Donald Sanborn must answer these three questions too.
When Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Tradition and there are no 'ambiguities' in it, then the Novus Ordo Mass theologically should not be a rupture with Tradition.
Also Vatican Council II cannot be made a reason, anymore, for changing and discarding the moral theology manuals or giving the Eucharist in the hand or claiming there is salvation outside the Church and so Church and State must be separate or that the teachings on the Social Reign of Christ the King no longer apply.-Lionel Andrades