Thursday, January 28, 2016

Vatican Council II is 'hate' without an irrationality used in the interpretation : Fr. James Martin S.J will not affirm this Council

a usually thoughtful and intelligent columnist for the The New York Times, has recently written some hateful things about Pope Francis, including that Francis’s “plot” against Catholicism finally is destined to be a battle between the pope or “the faith.”  -Fr.James Martin S.J

Ross Douthat would be correct in saying that Pope Francis has accepted a big theological change in the Catholic Church based on an irrationality .Without the irrational premise and inference, used in the interpretation,    Vatican Council II supports the old ecclesiology on Judaism and other religions not being paths to salvation and all non Catholics  needing to enter  the Church to avoid Hell.The ecclesiology of Vatican Council II,without the irrational inference, is exclusivist similar to pre-Council of Trent times.
This would be hate for Fr.James Martin.Vatican Council II itself would be political hate.Fr.Martin uses the irrationality.So Vatican Council II does not emerge as 'hate'.
Without the irrationality Vatican Council II supports the old ecclesiology which professional theologians reject.
For a priest who is honest there is no change in Church ecclesiology, unless he claims  knowing physically visible cases of persons saved in 2016  without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. For an honest priest  hypothetical references to salvation in Vatican Council II would not be known cases. So they would not be  relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). They could not be exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church.
Yet it is with these  exceptions, that Fr. James  Martin interprets Vatican Council II.He has to claim there are known exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Church to avoid Hell.He has to assume hypothetical cases  are explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS. In this way he gets rid of the old 'hateful' ecclesiology.
This really is like saying Fr.Martin (and the professional theologians) could physically see someone walking into his office who has been saved ( died and went to Heaven) in invincible ignorance of the Gospel and without 'faith and baptism'(LG 16).This is a break with the old ecclesiology.
Then during the week-end, he could claim, he met a friend  who had died and went to Heaven with 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) and without the baptism of water.This would be an example for him of an exception to all needing to formally convert into the Church.Vatican Council II is still politically correct for him. 
Then Fr.James Martin could have received a phone call from someone who died some time before the Baltimore Catechism was issued.The deceased mentioned that he was known to the clerics at Baltimore and they saw him in Heaven with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water.So they concluded that salvation was possible without the baptism of water and that the baptism of desire excluded the baptism of water.
It is on such fantasy cases that Fr. Martin, Massimo Faggioli and other politically correct, 'non haters' have based their theology.
An honest priest would say there are no such cases. There are no visible people in Heaven. There are no objective exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church to avoid Hell. Vatican Council II does not mention any such case.
An honest priest would say that none of the popes or saints said that baptism of desire cases were visible and known or that they could be exceptions to the dogma EENS.
An honest priest would not make a long list of references to the baptism of desire and then add a premise and inference to adapt the 'new interpretation' to the Baltimore Catechism. The Baltimore Catechism calls 'the desire', a baptism, like the baptism of water.For Fr.James Martin and Massimo Faggioli LG 16 is a baptism like the baptism of water and it excludes the baptism of water.
Other Catholics are honest.
I have often quoted on my blog Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson, Fr. S.Visintin OSB,Dean of Theology at the Pontfical University of St. Anselm, Rome and many other priests, who are honest.They have said there are no visible exceptions to EENS. For them the baptism of desire cases are not personally known in the present times.They cannot physically see the dead-saved.
So with no exceptions to EENs in Vatican Council II, the Council emerges Feeneyite.We are back to the old ecclesiology which would be hateful  for Fr.Martin.
Can Fr.Martin say that Vatican Council II can only be interpreted rationally when invisible cases are not considered visible? He could but if he does this it would not be acceptable theology for the Left. They support him. 
In a battle between the pope or “the faith,” it is the faith which will win. Catholics will eventually see theough all the false theology of the liberals.They will one day be aware of the magisterial heresy being supported by Catholic priests and bishops. 
This is the truth that Fr.James Martin, and the Academy of theological professionals, will deny. It is because the 'Catholic' theologians deny the truth and interpret Vatican Council II with an irrationality, their bishops give them the mandatum to teach theology or call themself Catholic. Their theology is dishonest but politically correct.
-Lionel Andrades

Ross Douthat needed to tell Fr.James Martin S.J that it is only with the use of an irrationality to interpret Vatican Council II that the Council 'develops doctrine'