Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Vatican Council II as interpreted by the two popes cannot be magisterial for Cardinal Burke since it is no different from the philosophical error in Amoris Laetitia

cardinal raymond burke
Cardinal Raymond Burke says Amoris Laetitia has an error and so it is not magisterial.However Vatican Council II also has the same error.So he could also say that Vatican Council II is not magisterial.There is an objective error in Vatican Council II.It is the same subjectivism of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office.This cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.
Cardinal Burke: Well first of all, as I stated from the beginning, the very form of Amoris Laetitia, and, actually, the words of the Pope within the document, indicate that it is not an exercise of the papal magisterium. And the way the document necessarily is read, as with every document, is in the light of the constant teaching and practice of the Church. And so the statements in AL which are in accord with the Church's constant teaching and practice certainly are very fine...1

Amoris Laetitia rejects traditional moral theology with subjectivism. It assumes what is subjectively known only to God can also be known to man. It assumes for example, that we can judge when a couple in objective mortal sin is not in mortal sin. So the Eucharist could be given to them.
Similarly  salvation theology was changed with subjectivism.The magisterium in 1949 told Fr.Leonard Feeney  that there were known exceptions to his traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 boldly says not every one needs to be incorporated into the Church for salvation.While Fr. Leonard Feeney and the Council of Florence 1441 held every one needed to be a member of the Church for salvation.The Church was the Mystical Body of Jesus. There was no salvation outside of Jesus in the Catholic Church.
However Cardinal Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston,the liberal Jesuit theologians and Rome assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were subjectively known cases.Otherwise how could they be relevant? If they really were invisible cases for them they could not be exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation.So for the ecclesiastics these cases could be judged in individual persons.This was their practical understanding of the issue.There were 'practical exceptions' to the dogma on exclusive salvation, for them.
With regard to the question of heresy, one has to be very attentive to material heresy and to formal heresy. In other words, material heresy: are there actual statements in the text which are materially heretical? Are they contradictory to the Catholic Faith? 

So the centuries old dogma on outside the Church there is no salvation was eliminated.It was done with an irrational premise ( known cases of the baptism of desire etc without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church) and non traditional and heretical conclusion( every one does not need to be incorporated into the Church as a member for salvation).This is contradictory to the Catholic Faith.This is heresy.

The confusion is extended to the Nicene Creed.It is now 'I believe in three or more known baptisms without the baptism of water for the forgiveness of sins. They are the baptism of desire, blood, elements of sanctification and truth, seeds of the Word,invincible ignorance of the Gospel through no fault of the person etc.'

The confusion is extended to the Renewal of Baptismal Vows. 'I believe in the one, holy and Apostolic Church outside of which there is known salvation and so not every one needs to be incorporated into the Church as a member for salvation'.Again we have the Catholic Faith contradicted here.It is with the same irrational premise.

The confusion is extended to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846 and 1257) which tries to accomodate known cases of the baptism of desire  and being saved in invincible ignorance.So it states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church and God is not limited to the Sacraments.

The confusion is extended to Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus which rejects the 'ecclesiocentrism of the past'.
Now the Masons are officially trying to extend the same confusion to moral theology, with Amoris Laeititia and they want it made official.Assume what is unknown is known  and can be known.This is their policy.Fr.Charles Curran presents many cases and moral acts as if these theoretical cases are rally exceptions to traditional moral theology- he can judge!
So just as there are subjectively judgeable exceptions to moral theology for Fr.Curran, througout 1949 the  magisterium assumed there were subjectively known exceptions in salvation theology.They did not lift the excommunication of Fr. Leonard  Feeney right through Vatican Council II.It was assumed there was a new doctrine in the Church.Subjectively there were known exceptions discovered  to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. No pope said that this was a lot of nonsense.These invisible cases were judged to be visible and the cardinals accepted this.So the error was mentioned in the text of Vatican Council II.
So phase one was complete.Salvation theology was changed. Phase two would be complete in 2016 when moral theology would also be officially changed.Revelation and the Gospel was also changed.
We cannot see people who are now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire etc.Yet it is mentioned in Vatican Council II.This was a mistake.Why is the baptism of desire (LG 14) mentioned in Vatican Council II with reference to all needing faith and baptism for salvation?  All need to formally enter the Church with faith and baptism and there cannot be any known exception.We cannot meet someone in 2017 saved without the baptism of water but instead with the baptism of desire. We cannot see or know of any one in Heaven saved without the baptism of water but instead with being in invincible ignorance.We cannot say that any particular saint was saved as such. Since there is no way of knowing.
But the Masonic subjectivism says there can be and there are known exceptions.So Ad Gentes 7 mentions those saved in invincible ignorance and  supposedly without the baptism of water.The 'explicit exception' is placed alongside the orthodox passage which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.So the cardinals inferred at the Council that being saved in invincible ignorance was an exception to all needing faith and baptism to avoid Hell.They could judge individual cases, saved as such.
The mistake can be seen in Lumen Gentium 14. LG 14  does not state like Ad Gentes 7, that all need faith and baptism for salvation.It refers only to those who know. Only those who know and who are not in invincible ignorance are on the way to Hell,not every one outside the Church.
Once again it was inferred that there were known cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance of the Gospel through no fault of their own. So the centuries- old teaching on all needing to enter the Church had become 'the ecclesiocentrism of the past'(Redemptoris Missio).
A new theology was created with philosophical subjectivism.It mixed up what is subjective as being objective, invisible as being visible, implicit as being explicit.
No one at Vatican Council II said there was a philosphical mistake,not even Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
The philosophical error of the visible for us baptism of desire cases, was  incorporated into Vatican Council II. It is there in so many passages.It is like a theme.
Vatican Council II in principle accepts that hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and  being saved in invincible ignorance are not hypothetical.This is an objective error.
Vatican Council II infers in principle that people in Heaven, known only to God are visible on earth and they are exceptions to the old ecclesiogy.This is a factual error.Yet this is how Pope Francis and Pope Benedict interpret Vatican Council II.
So the same subjectivism-error of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 makes Vatican Council II a break with Tradition.This cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit and it is accepted by the magisterium which approves Amoris Laetitia.
There is also a choice, a rational interpretation of the Council in harmony with Tradition.This interpretation is not chosen by the present magisterium. This again cannot be the choice and action of the Holy Spirit.
Without philosophical subjectivism, LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc are not explicit exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.So the baptism of desire (LG 14) and being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16) are not explicit exceptions, to all needing faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7). Neither are they exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known, for example in the 16th century.
So my interpretation of Vatican Council II and that of the two popes is different.
We have a Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) which is my personal interpretation and we have a Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) which is the official interpretation.Vatican Council II(Cushingite) is based on subjectivism and an irrational reasoning. It is heretical but also magisterial. It cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.
Why does Cardinal Burke not consider the magisterial interpretation of the Council as non binding, irrational, non traditional and heretical ?
Why does he not state that Vatican Council II as interpreted by the two popes cannot be magisterial? It is no different from Amoris Laetitia.It is material heresy.-Lionel Andrades


No comments: