Sunday, December 11, 2016

Priest confirms philosophical error : Lefebvre excommunication a mistake.

Image result for Photo of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre with padre pio
I showed a priest this report 1.For over an hour late, yesterday evening,  we discussed this issue in the was after evening Mass in Italian.He studies at a Pontifical University in Rome.
With reference to the first question in the report he agreed that the baptism of desire is hypothetical.If anyone suggests that a baptism of desire case is objectively visible in 2016  it is irrational.He agreed here too.Similarly in the past no one could have physically seen a baptism of desire case.He agreed. So it cannot be inferred that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance is an exception or relevant to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).The magisterium made a mistake.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston made a mistake. It inferred that the baptism of desire was relevant and an exception to the dogma EENS.It inferred that there were known cases of the baptism of desire.
This mistake from 1949 was then incorporated into the text of Vatican Council II.The Council should not have mentioned the anonymous case of someone being saved in invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16)  or the unknown catechumen who has not yet received the baptism of water but had an intended to join the Church(before he died).
Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.-Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-Lumen Gentium 14 ( emphasis added)

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.
These passages are irrelevant to Ad Gentes 7 which says 'all ' need 'faith and baptism' for 'salvation' as does the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
So when we accept Lumen Gentium  16 and Lumen Gentium 14 (above) as referring to a hypothetical case it is not an exception to the dogma EENS.It is not a rupture with EENS according to the 16th century missionaries.
This mean the ecclesology of the Church has not changed with Vatican Council II.There is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the interpretation of EENS according to St.Robert Bellarming and St.Francis Xavier.
Invisible cases of Lumen Gentium  16, Lumen Gentium 8, Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Nostra Aetate 2 etc cannot be exceptions to the dogma, which says all need to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation.So there is no text in Vatican Council II to contradict the old ecclesiology.
Vatican Council II really contradicts the new ecclesiology of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
Image result for Photo of Cardinal Ratzinger with Fr.Karl Rahner
Based on the new ecclesiology, Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr. Karl Rahner said there is salvation outside the Church. So there could be the Anonymous Christian and all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church (CCC 846).
The old ecclesiology supported an ecumenism of return.There is no text in Vatican Council II to contradict an ecumenism of return for the Orthodox Christians, Protestants etc.
An ecumenism of return in Vatican Council II could only be contradicted in the text of Vatican Council II if, for example, Unitatitis Redintigratio 3( imperfect communion with the Church) is interpreted as being visible. There would be a rupture with the old ecumenism only if UR 3 referred to a visible instead of an invisible case in 2016.This would mean there is someone personally known who is saved outside the Catholic Church without Catholic faith.
Related image
But the text of the Council does not say this.It is the inference which has caused the trouble and there was no clarification from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.Until today the CDF is unaware of the false premise and conclusion.
So with Lumen Gentium 16(invincible ignorance) and Lumen Gentium 14(catechumen) referring to hypothetical cases, Vatican Council II is only saying, without any ambiguity, that all Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and other non Christians need faith and baptism for salvation.
Nostra Aetate does not mention any known exception to Ad Gentes 7.Nor is Nostra Aetate 2 an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.Since it refers to 'a zero case' as the apologist John Martignoni would put it.
The priest confirmed the obvious yesterday, that, hypothetical cases cannot be explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS.
However in spite of writing about all this over the last fews years the Vatican Curia and the CDF/Ecclesia Dei will not comment.They interpret Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases being objective exceptions to EENS. This seems like a political position.
Image result for Photo of Cardinal Ratzinger with Fr.Karl Rahner
It makes me  ask myself if this information was known at the time of the excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.Was it known to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II?
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was correct. Vatican Council II ( with the irrational premise) was a rupture with the dogma EENS and Tradition.But he did not know the specific cause.
The specific reason was: hypothetical cases were assumed to be objectively visible in the present times.Then it was inferred that these 'visible' cases were objective exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation, the traditional interpretation, of the dogma EENS.So with an irrational premise and a non traditional conclusion, there emerged a new theology, which made Vatican Council II a rupture with Tradition.
Cardinal Ratzinger did not know all this?
Pope John Paul II did not know this?
May be it was simple ignorance. Something overlooked.They were not trying to please any lobby.
Vatican Council II being a break with Tradition was the principal reason Archbishop Lefebvre ordained bishops and then was excommunicated.
Cardinal Ratzinger was the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and it was his responsibility to clarify that Vatican Council II was not a break with the old ecclesiology and that the magisterium made an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office.Instead he approved the excommunication and accepted Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition. He probably was in ignorance.

A few months back in an interview with Avvenire Pope Benedict said EENS is no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries.There was 'a development' with Vatican Council II. He really meant hypothetical cases were assumed to be objectively visible in 2016.This was the development.
Is he still uninformed, even though there are thousands of blog posts on this  subject on the Internet today? Or is he for some reason, like the CDF/Ecclesia Dei, ignoring this issue?
He still does not issue a clarification, something which should have been done before the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre and the new bishops.
We cannot only put the blame on Cardinal Ratzinger.Since even the SSPX bishops and priests did not mention the issue of hypothetical cases not being explicit.This was bad philosophy which was ignored even by the traditionalists.They were conditioned into thinking hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire were not hypothetical.
Even today traditionalist bloggers do not understand what I am saying.Or if they do understand, they do not want to admit that all of them were wrong in their interpretation of Vatican Council II.
The Council is not ambiguous but traditional.
This young priest with whom I spoke to yesterday confirmed for me that a major philosophical mistake has been made by the teaching authority of the Church, the magisterium ( 1949-2016).
He was personally against excommunications. He thought the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston was a mistake.Since Fr.Leonard Feeney was saying the same thing as the 16th century missionaries.
It was the Archdiocese of Boston, the Holy Office and the Jesuits in the USA which had brought in an innovation with in the dogma EENS.They made the philosophical error and then incorporated it into Vatican Council II.Archbishop Lefebvre opposed the rupture with Tradition and he was excommunicated.It was the magisterium which was in heresy with their irrational, non traditional and heretical interpretation of EENS ( as having known exceptions). Then it was the magisterium (1965) which was in heresy for interpreting Vatican Council II with this false premise ( visible baptism of desire) to create a heretical conclusion( Vatican Council II is a rupture with the dogma EENS).
They are in heresy even today ( 2016) since they will not interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and conclusion, and so accept a Vatican Council II which is in harmony with EENS according to the 16th century missionaries.
Image result for Photo of Fr.Stefano ManelliImage result for Photo of Society of St.Pius X
It is this heretical version of Vatican Council II, which the magisterium wants the Society of St. Pius X and the Franciscans of the Immaculate to approve when they offer the Traditional Latin Mass.Vatican Council II with a new ecclesiology based on visible for us baptism of desire is a priority for receiving canonical status, a priest being incardinated or a Catholic organization remaining 'in good standing in the Church'.
-Lionel Andrades


DECEMBER 10, 2016

The present magisterium has made a major philosophical mistake


Luis Ladaria Ferrer 04032011SELADARIAFERRER
Ask these four questions and the entire philosophical and theological house of cards being supported by the contemporary magisterium comes down.
1.From the philosophical point of view a catechumen desires to receive the baptism of water but he dies before he can receive it.This is a hypothetical case for us?
My answer is YES.It is a hypothetical case.
It would be hypothetical for us and known only to God.
2.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.
3.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 Yes.
Since it is being assumed that something invisible is visible.It is being inferred that someone who does not exist is there on earth and known, someone who is not concrete and tangible it is assumed to be defacto and real in present time and space.
4.Similarly this case of a catechumen in the past too would be hypothetical for the people of that time, since it cannot be physically visible and known in personal cases?
My answer is YES.
No could have physically seen this catechumen saved, in Heaven or on earth.
So here are the final two questions which show that magisterium's bad theology is based on bad philosophy. 
1) Do we personally know the dead now 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 they we cannot see them. They are not physically visible and personally known in our time and space.

2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or 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 in the first place. Rome made a mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.-Lionel Andrades


No comments: