Cardinal Robert Sarah has still not sorted out the issue of the two faiths during Mass.One has the theology of their being known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the other which omits this irrationality.One if based on a false premise and the other is without it.One assumes hypothetical cases are objectively seen and known in 2016 the other avoids this subjectivism.
So if there is a Mass ad orientem or facing the people it is always with one of these two faiths.
I have one faith and every one else has another faith in the Catholic Church.
On the Vortex On Being Saved, Michael Voris said every one needs to enter the Church for salvation.In Heaven there are only Catholics.This is my faith.It is the old ecclesiology without the new premise, without there being known exceptions to EENS in 2016.
What if the SSPX affirms 'my faith' in the Catholic Church, can they get canonical status?
What if Una Voce says the common premise, in the Church, used to interpret Vatican Council II is wrong.Will they be written off by the Vatican?
This first Sunday in Advent there will be priests who will offer Holy Mass ad orientem, in Latin or the vernacular.Can they affirm the old ecclesiology which shows there are no known exceptions to EENS in 2016.Also neither is LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc practical exceptions to all needing faith and baptism; all needing to formally enter the Church ? Will they choose rationality?
If their ecclesiology is rational this Advent, it will be the same old ecclesiology of St. Robert Bellarmine.Yet unlike the new faith, it will be in agreement with Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.They will be accepting the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949,like I do, and rejecting the irrational, non traditional and heretical second part.
Of course Cardinal Nicols and the liberal cardinals can continue to offer Holy Mass with 'the new faith', which is different from mine.But one of us has to be wrong.
If I am wrong then could Cardinal Sarah and someone else show me precisely where I am wrong?
Basically, what I am saying is that hypothetical cases cannot be explicit in 2016 and so there cannot be exceptions to the dogma EENS in the present or the past.From here I return to the 'old faith'.From here, with an irrational reasoning, every one else in the Church, has a 'new faith'.The liberal theologians and Pope Benedict have called it a development.
There was a whole Church Council (1962-65) which has been interpreted by the secular media and the contemporary magisterium, as affirming the new faith.For me it is different.
All this will be difficult for many Catholics to understand unless they realize that the new faith emerged from the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits at Vatican Council II were implementing the new faith.Until today even well meaning conservatives and traditionalists interpret Vatican Council II with the new faith. They are unaware of the rational choice.For many it is difficult to interpret Vatican Council II with the old faith, without the premise.They need to confuse invisible cases as being visible and think this is magisterial. Their mind has been conditioned to accept irrationality and falsehood for over 70- plus years.
The two faiths existing in the Church reminds me of a Vortex when Michael Voris asks Fr. Jonathan Morris to apologise for saying not every one needs to enter the Church for salvation.Whom did Fr.Jonathan know, Michael asked, who did not need to enter the Church?
Fr.Morris off course was affirming the new faith.He was sincere. It's EENS with exceptions. Vatican Council II with explicit exceptions to EENS.
If Fr.Morris would affirm EENS, Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church without hypothethical cases being explicit in 2016, without the new theology,he would be affirming the old faith, my faith.