Saturday, January 28, 2017

Vatican chooses interpretation of Nostra Aetate which violates Principle of Non Contradiction but is not anti-Semitic for the Jewish Left.

TapestryRaymond Apple writing in the Jerusalem Post says after Nostra Aetate 'Christianity would never be the same again'.1 He means the Catholic Church has changed with Nostra Aetate since the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been eliminated.Nostra Aetate suggests there is known salvation outside the Church.All do not need to be incorporated into the Church was the message of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which was approved by Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits at Boston College, who also happened, coincidently, to draft Nostra Aetate.
The Letter was kept hidden by the Archdiocese and made public after three years, without the official stamp of Rome.The Letter suggests the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, refer to personally known cases, of non- Catholics saved outside the Church, without the baptism of water.
orthodox rabbis
This was really the landmark document Raymond Apply would be referring to.Since it changed Catholic doctrine.Nostra Aetate reflects this change made with an irrational premise.It creates a new and non traditional conclusion.
If Raymond Apple chose to assume the baptism of desire(BOD) and beign saved in invincible ignorance(I.I), without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church,  as referring to invisible cases, as they are in the present times( instead of visible and known persons) then Nostra Aetate is orthodox.It's very Catholic.
Image result for photos rabbis on nostra aetate
However he uses the false premise ( visible- for- us- baptism of desire) and so the conclusion is non traditional and heretical (there is known salvation outside the Church, so the thrice defined dogma has to be put aside.Cardinal Ratzinger calls the dogma an 'aphorism' in the Catechism).
So without his irrationality and fantasy theology, suggesting we can see people in Heaven who are exceptions to the dogma on earth in the present times, there is no change in Christianity; in the teachings of the Catholic Church.
But this is not how the media chooses to interpret Nostra Aetate.
Image result for photos rabbis on nostra aetate
Tim Valkenberg  makes an interesting observation in his pro-Jewish Left take on Nostra Aetate.2
Yet there were bishops who found the document unacceptable because it said something really new in its positive approach to other religions, and therefore they judged it was not in continuity with the venerated tradition of the Church (just like the document Dignitatis Humanae on human dignity and religious freedom). These are still the Vatican documents least liked by ultra-conservatives.
 The document was obviously unacceptable since deception was used to eliminate a dogma of the Church.The doctrine was changed  on ecumenism and also inter-religious dialogue.It was with a  falsehood of there being known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus that an injustice was done by Cardinal Cushing to Fr. Leonard Feeney.The priest  was not proclaiming any thing new.After the Boston success Cushing placed the deception in Vatican Council II.
So Nostra Aetate suggests that a non Catholic can be saved in his religion, since there were allegedly known cases of non Catholics who were saved outside the Church.
We know this is false. Since physically none of us can know of someone saved outside the Church.If it did happen it would only be known to God.
Image result for photos rabbis on nostra aetate
Secondly if someone was saved in the past as such, it could not be an exception to the dogma EENS. Since that person, to be an exception would have to exist. He would have to live in the present times. For example if there is a St.Emerentiana who was saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water in the past, she could not be an exception to the dogma EENS. Firstly no one could have seen her in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water secondly, assuming she was saved as such ( for arguements sake) how could she in the past be an exception to the dogma EENS, for example, in 2016-2017?. How can someone in the past or future be an exception to the dogma EENS in the present times.They would have to exist in our reality!.They would have to exist  in the present times to be a practical exception.
It is based on such specious reasoning that Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits first misused their power in Boston and then inserted the deception in Nostra Aetate and other documents of Vatican Council II.
Michael Barnes SJ writes  Nostra Aetate 'encapsulates the extraordinary outpouring of the Spirit that characterised the Council’ 3. This is false. Nostra Aetate in particular and Vatican Council II in general reflects a major philosophical mistake in the Catholic Church and this cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit. It is human error, an objective mistake.
The liberal Jesuit writes :
In 2008 an initiative of the Anglican Communion, Generous Love, structuring mission in a pluralist world around a Trinitarian vision, acknowledged its debt to Nostra Aetate. In 2000 over 150 Jewish scholars and rabbis published Dabru Emet, a series of statements about what Jews and Christians hold together.
These Jewish Rabbis like the Left in general have made an objective mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.If they did not use the irrational premise and allowed  hypothetical references to just be hypothetical then Vatican Council II would affirm the centuries old interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is a rational,alternative and traditional interpretation of Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This is how I interpret the Council. It is in harmony with the ecclesiocentrism of the past.It is in harmony with the dogma on salvation , for example,as it was interpreted  by the missionaries in the 16th century.So this would be an interpretation of Vatican Council II in harmony with the teachings of the Holy Spirit over the centuries.
However for the Jewish Left rabbis, who in public tell Catholics what they must believe, and indirectly say that the Catholic religion is inadequate and incomplete,  this interpretation of Nostra Aetate would violate their anti-Semitic laws.Nostra Aetate would be racist etc.  
Image result for photos rabbis on nostra aetate
So the present magisterium of the Catholic Church has chosen an interpretation of Vatican Council II which is not anti-Semitic for the Jewish Left but for discerning Catholics, violates the Principle of Non Contradiction.
-Lionel Andrades
Nostra Aetate – 50 years later
28 October 2015 20:59
Has ‘Nostra Aetate’ stood the test of time?
Nostra Aetate – the moral heart of the Second Vatican Council


January 24, 2017

Catechism of the Catholic Church says Orthodox Christians and Protestants oriented to Hell

January 26, 2017

There is a mistake in Nostra Aetate,Vatican Council II and it still is not on the radar of Catholics. No one has reported it yet.

January 25, 2017

Cardinal Richard Cushing and Nostra Aetate picked up the objective error from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949

January 28, 2013


August 1, 2013

Fr.Chad Ripperger and FSSP priests not permitted by the Vatican to affirm the traditional teaching on salvation

 January 14, 2017

Two popes irrational and in heresy : Archbishop Gullickson, Fr.Visintin osb correct

No comments: