Monday, June 5, 2017

When Chris Ferrara wrote The Great Facade he did not know Vatican Council II could be interpreted without the irrational premise and the conclusion would be different

Image result
When Chris Ferrara wrote The Great Facade he did not know that Vatican Council II could be interpreted without the irrational premise and the conclusion would be different. He did not know that we also have a Vatican Council II ( Feeneyism) which is not a rupture with the past ecclesiology and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted by the 16th century missionaries.Roberto dei Mattei and Attila Guimaraes also wrote their books on Vatican Council II using an irrational new theology.They did not know about the alternative.
Chris Ferrara uses Cushingite instead of  Feeneyite lens to read Vatican Council II.I have mentioned this quite a few years back and have repeated it and have sent him e-mails about it.
There is no response.
For all of them Lumen Gentium 16 refers to a known case of salvation outside the Church.LG 16 contradicts EENS and the Syllabus of Errors for them. So they reject Vatican Council II.In their books they criticize Vatican Council II.
In his reasoning he seems rational,since the false premise is overlooked and he resumes there are known cases of salvation this year, or last year, or in 1949 or 1892.1

For him someone like St.Emerentiana or St.Victor is in Heaven without the baptism of water.So when Pope Benedict and the liberals ( Masons) say there is 'a development of doctrine' Chris Ferrara does not have a clue to the specific error.Since he uses the same irrational reasoning.His premise is - people in Heaven are visible and known.They include people saved with the baptism of desire.His inference is : so there is salvation outside the Church.1This is also how the magisterium wrongly interprets Vatican Council II and there has been so much confusion over the last 50 years when Vatican Council II is interpreted with an irrational premise ,invisible people are visible and so LG 16, LG 8, GS 22, UR 3, NA 2 etc; invisible cases are visible exceptions to the dogma EENS as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.

Ferrara in his debate with Mark Shea refers to his book  The Great Facade 2 and says there has been no change in the teachings of the Catholic Church on salvation and the need for Jews to convert.
At (41:50) he says that it is a dogma of the faith to make disciples of all nations and this includes the Jews.The Council of Florence says that Jews,heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life unless before death they are joined to the Catholic Church.
Objectively speaking the Jews and others need to believe and be baptised for eternal life or be condemned he said. That is the objective reality of the situation.
Image result for photos Mistakes
He says there is no change in the Church's teaching on salvation.This is incorrect.
There has been a clear change with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.This change later shows itself dramatically in Vatican Council II.It can be interpreted with Cushingism( invisible baptism of desire is a visible exception to EENS) or Feeneyism ( invisible baptism of desire is irrelevant to EENS).So we have a Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) which is either Cushingite or Feeyneyite.For Chris Ferrara it is Cushingite.For me it is Feeneyite.
For Chris Ferrara Vatican Council II (LG 16) is a rupture with Tradition, it is a break with the dogma EENS ( Feeneyite).For me Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc ) is not a rupture with the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.
Image result for chris ferrara Mark shea debate photos
Chris Ferrara did not know this when he wrote the book nor when he participated in the debate with Mark Shea who rejects the Council of Florence and extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Theologically, he is a Cushingite on the dogma EENS.
On Vatican Council II Ferrara and Shea are Cushingites, they use the same new theology.
All those priests and nuns who left their religious vocation after Vatican Council II were all interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism and so were rejecting the conclusion.
Chris Ferrara is a Cushingite on Vatican Council but rejects the conclusion of this interpretation. Mark Shea and the present magisterium,also Cushingites, accept the conclusion, for them Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition.
So in the second edition of The Great Facade which includes the pontificate of Pope Francis, he still does not mention this fundamental issue. He still does not know or want to know that he was wrong all these 50 years on Vatican Council II. He was correct that Vatican Council II( Cushingite) was a rupture with Tradition. But he did not know that the rupture is caused with the irrational premise and without the premise we have Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).
Image result for chris ferrara Mark shea debate photos
Inspite of so many reports on the Internet over some six years he has updated his book and will probably write another one based on Vatican Council II and EENS being Cushingite.This would be a facade.
The typical Catholic school which he mentions in the AOTM debate, interprets Vatican Council II with Cushingism and Chris Ferrara is unable to correct them, since he is a Cushingite too!
Before 1949 they evangelised knowing that the desire for the baptism of water by a catechumen who dies before receiving it was a hypothetical case.
They also knew that those who are saved in invincible ignorance are also people not known to us on earth, they would only be known to God. So this is not relevant to the dogma EENS.
The liberal theologians made it relevant, it was accepted by the popes and Archbishop Lefebvre and then also by Chris Ferrara.
Image result for chris ferrara
So when Chris Ferrrara wrote EWTN A Network Gone Wrong he could not criticize EWTN on this point. Since he also has changed Church teachings on salvation, like EWTN, by mixing up what is invisible as being visible, what is hypothetical as being defacto and concrete.-Lionel Andrades


MARCH 20, 2016

The central point of what I want to say


No comments: