Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Catholic professors in Rome now tell lies : pontifical universities don't want to be quoted on a philosophical subject

Image result for Photos of teaching a lie
There are philosophical mistakes in Vatican Council II, objective mistakes.Errors in empirical observvation and professors of  philosophy do not want to answer.Instead, even after being informed, they are consciously and intentionally teaching a lie to the students. In this way they remain politically correct and there is no threat to their career.
They could simply answer the following questions (below) but they will not do so.Instead, they will continue to assume that the baptism of desire refers to a visible case in the present times. Then they will infer that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So every one does not need to be incorporated into the Church as a member for salvation.
Image result for Photos of teaching a lie
According to Italian law telling a lie in some contexts, is criminal.
For Catholic professors, of philosophy and theology, it is not un-ethical to lie by inferring that the baptism of desire cases refer to visible  and known people. 
1.In this way Vatican Council II (LG 16, LG 14 etc) becomes a rupture with the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So they lie after being informed.
2.It also means that by mixing up what is invisible as being visible, the Holy Office 1949 and the Archbshop of Boston did not make a mistake and were not in heresy in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case.So they lie They also criticize Fr. Leonard Feeney and are poltically correct with the Left.It also means that the magisterium has not made a mistake.The LIE helps.
Image result for Photos of teaching a lie
Here are the questions that Catholic professors in Rome, and many priests too, would not like to answer and be quoted.

1.From the philosophical point of view a catechumen desires to receive the baptism of water but he dies before he can receive it and is allegedly saved.Is this a hypothetical case for you?

My answer is YES.It is a hypothetical case.
It would be hypothetical for us and known only to God.
So is this case of a catechumen who is saved with the 'baptism of desire' known or unknown for you ?
He is always unknown for me. He can only be known to God if he existed.
So if someone says that this case of the catechumen is physically visible in 2016 and personally known to us then this would be false reasoning.? My answer is YES.
Would it violate the Principle of Non Contradiction if someone said this case was visible in the present times, and was personally known?
My answer is Yes since it is being assumed that someone invisible is visible.It is being inferred that someone who does not exist is there on earth and is known.Someone who is not concrete and tangible is assumed to be defacto and real in present time and space.
Similarly this case of an un-seen and known catechumen who is saved with the desire for the baptism of water,in the past too, would be hypothetical for the people of that time, since it cannot be physically visible and known in personal cases? Yes.It cannot be known. It is always an invisible case for us human beings.

A. Do we personally know people saved  in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2016 ?
My answer is that we cannot see them. They are not physically visible .They are not personally known to us in our time and space.

B. Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible to us, there cannot be any known exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, nor to Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation  My answer is that they are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They were never exceptions.The Holy Office 1949 and the Archbishop of Boston made an objective error.

C.So when Vatican Council II mentions this catechumen (LG 14) and being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16),along with orthodox passages, which support the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, was it a mistake?
It was a mistake for me. Since these are 'zero cases' in our reality, they are not 'practical exceptions' to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the old ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.I can read Vatican Council II while noting that these cases are hypothetical and theoretical only.
-Lionel Andrades

No comments: