Monday, April 11, 2016

This error is all over Vatican Councl II and it should be enough for any one to reject the Council if they wanted to :its also there in Amoris Laetitia

Related image
I would prefer the Council of Trent to other catechisms and would recommend it to others. Since the Baltimore Catechism has an objective error in the Baptism Section.The Catechism of Pope Pius X also repeats that same error in the Baptism Section. It assumes a hypothetical case is objectively known and then infers that it is an exception to the traditional teaching on salvation, inter religious dialogue and ecumenism since the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been discarded.There is an exception to the dogma. There is known salvation outside the Church.
Then the same objective error was repeated in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. There was known salvation outside the Church even though objectively in 1949  no one knew of any known case of someone saved outside the Church i.e without faith and baptism.
Fr.Leonard Feeney was criticized and then excommunicated since it was believed that hypothetical cases of the baptism of the desire, were objectively known exceptions to the Council of Trent's understanding of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.
Related image
The Vatican Council Fathers also accepted that hypothetical  cases are objectively known. So they mention the baptism of desire  etc.None of them knew of any case of the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. Yet they mentioned these 'exceptions'. This error is all over Vatican Council II and it should be enough for any one to reject the Council if they wanted to.
Then Cardinal Ratzinger in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1992 repeated the error on salvation. He went further and suggested that there were circumstances, hypothetical circumstances, in which mortal sin was not mortal sin.
So when reading all these Church documents I am constantly coming across this error which was not there in the Council of Trent.
So I can affirm the 16th century interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) based on the Council of Trent,knowing that none of the hypothetical cases mentioned in all the Church documents after Trent, are an exception to EENS. They cannot be exceptions to EENS since in reality they are theoretical. They do not exist physically. They are not de facto known.
Similarly I can accept the traditional teaching on mortal sin according to the Catechism of the Council of Trent knowing that all the hypothetical scenarios, in later catechisms,  are just that- hypothetical. So they do not contradict the 16th century interpretation of mortal sin and moral theology.
Cardinal Christoph Schonborn (right)  and Cardinal Lorenxo Baldisseri hold a copy of Pope Francis's apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (CNS)
So Amoris Laetitia for me does not contradict the 16th century, understanding of mortal sin since for me there are no hypothetical exceptions to the old moral teaching on sin.However for the cardinals hypothetical cases are exceptions to the old moral law. So Amoris Laetitia has to be a confusing and heretical document.
So as a Catholic I affirm the traditional moral and salvation theology of the Church in accord with the Council of Trent and without rejecting Vatican Council II and the other Catechisms, since I do not confuse what is invisible as being visible, hypothetical as being objective.
If there is a hypothetical case and the pope considers it a concrete case of knowing someone who is living in concubinage and will not be going to Heaven, this is his perspective.This is something only God can judge. I know that he cannot say that any person, due to a circumstance, or a situation, will not go to Hell and is not living in mortal sin.He cannot know.Presently this is his irrational reasoning. So for him a hypothetical case is objectively known and so is an exception to the traditional moral law.
Related image
The two popes confuse what is subjective as being objective.Then they infer that these so called objective cases are exceptions to the traditional teaching on morals and faith.This factual error is the basis of the new liberal moral and faith theology, the new theology, the new ecclesiology.
We have to be aware of this error when reading Vatican Council II and the catechisms which followed the Council of Trent.It is based on this error, this 'development' in the Catechism(1992) that so many wrong inferences were made in Amoris Laetitiae to support adultery and condone mortal sin and sacrilege.-Lionel Andrades

"More is involved here than mere ignorance"

Getting on the bandwagon...


"More is involved here than mere ignorance"
"A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding its inherent values."

I find this one of the most baffling statements in Amoris Laetitia - what is its point?

That in this fallen world we are often perfectly aware of what is right and yet we do wrong anyway?

Or that we know what She says, but deny the Church's authority to transmit and interpret God's law?

Not sure how the first would mitigate culpability, not sure how the second would involve anyone who gives a tinker's dam what a Church document allows or forbids or even says about anything.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...
Can you imagine saying this about any other trangression?

"A subject may know full well the rule [against paedophilia], yet have great difficulty in understanding its inherent values."

"A subject may know full well the rule [against lending at usury], yet have great difficulty in understanding its inherent values."

"A subject may know full well the rule [against cheating at cards], yet have great difficulty in understanding its inherent values."

"A subject may know full well the rule [against beating your wife], yet have great difficulty in understanding its inherent values."

I want to read the Catechism of Trent.Too many factual mistakes in other catechisms and Vatican Council II

Related imageI need a personal copy of the Cathechism of the Council of Trent.Since in the catechisms which followed Trent there is a factual error. They have mixed up what is hypothetical as being explicit.The same mistake is there in Vatican Council II.There are entire passages based on this mistake.There are so many superflous references which should not have been there.They are meaningless.The Catechism(1992) says God is not limited to the Sacraments.Then there are the three hypothetical conditions of mortal sin.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are mentioned, as if they are known in the flesh cases in the present times.This is all deadwood.They have nothing to do with the passages they are associated with.The same confusion, mixing up what is invisible as being visible is there in the text of Vatican Council II.
Why did cardinals Ratzinger and Schonborn have to refer to God not being limited to the Sacraments (CCC 1257) ? Why was the case of the catechumen saved with the baptism of desire placed in  Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism' for salvation? Who is this catechumen? Do we know the name and surname of any one saved without the baptism of water since 1992-2016?
Similarly why did the Baltimore Catechism have to place, in the Baptism Section,  the desire for the baptism of water by an unknown catechumen who dies before receiving it ?  Who in Baltimore knew of someone saved without the baptism of water but with this new baptism ? Is the baptism of desire really like the baptism of water? Can we repeat the baptism of desire and give it to someone?
Vatican Council II is full of this mistake. I repeat ,there are entire passages based on this mistake.'Seeds of the Word'(AG 11) , 'imperfect communion with the Church', 'elements of sanctification and truth' found outside the Church, ' a ray of that Truth' which saves, saved in invincible ignorance and with a good conscience(LG 16) etc.
I would like to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I don't have a copy of my own.
I do not reject the other catechisms and Vatican Council II. What is traditional and in agreement with the Catechism of Trent I accept.I need to buy my copy in English at a bookstore near the Vatican which will probably have a copy.
In this way I will get past the Ratzinger-Rahner innovation.So much of nonsense. The invisible-dead theory! The dead man walking and visible theology!
-Lionel Andrades