When the sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake since theoretical and hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II cannot be explicit exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) they will have a traditional interpretation of Vatican Council.It is a different Vatican Council II then the one they knew over the last 50 years.
Vatican Council II becomes traditional on Feeneyite EENS and the old ecclesiology. There would be no exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II. Invisible cases cannot be exceptions to EENS.
Of course the whole world will still be interpreting the Council with the false premise, with Cushingism but they have a choice.
The sedes and trads at least can no more say that for them personally the popes since John XXIII are in heresy. Since now Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) would not contradict the old ecclesiology of the Church.
Catholics could then interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.Pope John XXIII would not be in heresy since Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) is not heretical.
The problem with Vatican Council II for the sedes and trads really began with their error in 1949. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, like Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, did not notice the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.Invisible baptism of desire was assumed to be visible. It brought a new way of thinking into the Church.
This new theory, resulted in a new theology. It wrongly accepted hypothetical cases as being concrete exceptions to the dogma EENS. This was the irrational thinking at Vatican Council II.
This was the irrational philosophy of Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits. It was not opposed by Rahner and Ratzinger.Instead they incorporated the error into the Church.
Fr.Rahner placed the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in the Denzinger and Cardinal Ratzinger supported the error as the Prefect of the CDF.
It is still possible to re-interpret the hypothetical cases as just being hypothetical and then there are no exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II.Even though a bad theology was used at Vatican Council we can interpret the Council text without using that theology, the new theology.
When there is no change in ecclesiology, since there is no known salvation outside the Church; there are no practical cases, which would contradict Feeneyite EENS, Vatican Council II becomes traditional because of the new interpretation without the bad theology. The ecclesiology of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II would be the same.
So if Bishop Donald Sanborn accepts that a mistake was made during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII; the pope overlooked the error in the Letter of the Holy Office, then Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI were not in heresy. This contradicts the position he held in the debate with the professor of theology at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, Robert Fastiggi.
So there would be a continuity in the ecclesiology of the Church over the centuries. The Council would not be a rupture with Tradition.
Bishop Sanborn can now contact the Chancery.Report to the local bishop as he promised he would do. Since his challenge during the debate with Fastiggi has been met .
He wagered that if any one could show him how Vatican Council II was not heretical and a rupture with the past he would leave his sedevacantism.
He has now before him a Vatican Council II which can be interpreted without an irrational premise.So it has a continuity with the popes over the centuries.-Lionel Andrades
June 26, 2017
Sedes and trads have chosen the interpretation of the Masons and liberals : they deny Jesus as He was known before Pius XII
The problem with Vatican Council II for the sedes and trads really began with their error in 1949. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, like Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, did not notice the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.Invisible baptism of desire was assumed to be visible. It brought a new way of thinking into the Church.
This new theory, resulted in a new theology. It wrongly accepted hypothetical cases as being concrete exceptions to the dogma EENS. This was the irrational thinking at Vatican Council II.
This was the irrational philosophy of Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits. It was not opposed by Rahner and Ratzinger.Instead they incorporated the error into the Church.
Fr.Rahner placed the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in the Denzinger and Cardinal Ratzinger supported the error as the Prefect of the CDF.
It is still possible to re-interpret the hypothetical cases as just being hypothetical and then there are no exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II.Even though a bad theology was used at Vatican Council we can interpret the Council text without using that theology, the new theology.
When there is no change in ecclesiology, since there is no known salvation outside the Church; there are no practical cases, which would contradict Feeneyite EENS, Vatican Council II becomes traditional because of the new interpretation without the bad theology. The ecclesiology of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II would be the same.
So if Bishop Donald Sanborn accepts that a mistake was made during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII; the pope overlooked the error in the Letter of the Holy Office, then Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI were not in heresy. This contradicts the position he held in the debate with the professor of theology at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, Robert Fastiggi.
So there would be a continuity in the ecclesiology of the Church over the centuries. The Council would not be a rupture with Tradition.
Bishop Sanborn can now contact the Chancery.Report to the local bishop as he promised he would do. Since his challenge during the debate with Fastiggi has been met .
He wagered that if any one could show him how Vatican Council II was not heretical and a rupture with the past he would leave his sedevacantism.
He has now before him a Vatican Council II which can be interpreted without an irrational premise.So it has a continuity with the popes over the centuries.-Lionel Andrades
June 26, 2017
Sedes and trads have chosen the interpretation of the Masons and liberals : they deny Jesus as He was known before Pius XII
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment