The- Lumen- Gentium- 16- is- visible mistake is all over the websites of the sedevacantists and traditionalists.This is the Arian-like heresy in the Catholic Church.See the pattern.They conclude Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition.Since Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) is an example of salvation outside the Church.It indicates someone in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water who was saved without being a member of the Church.So he is an exception to the dogma EENS.Since he is an exception to EENS. They reject Vatican Council II.This is their reasoning on their website.So it means for them LG 16 is a personally known person. Since only some one visible and concrete can be an exception. If someone is not there , if he does not exist he is not an exception.
So whenever they say LG 16, LG 8, LG 14, AG 7, AG 11, UR 3,NA 2, GS 22 etc are exceptions they imply that these are references to people known.
For me, when I read Vatican Council II, LG 16 is not an exception to Tradition. Vatican Council II is not a break with Tradition.LG 16 is merely a hypothetical case.It is a theoretical case.A possibility and that too it will be followed by the baptism of water since this is the dogmatic teaching.But it is not visibly or personally known, this is an important point.So there are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in Vatican Council II for me.
Now we have the traditionalists and sedevacantists assuming Vatican Council II is a break with EENS since LG 16 refers to a visible case while I know that LG 16 refers to someone invisible in 2017 and so is not a break with EENS.This is the difference. I affirm all magisterial documents knowing that LG 16; invincible ignorance is not a visible case. Hypothetical cases are not visible for me, they are not exceptions to the traditional ecclesiology of the Church.
Since there is no change in the ecclesiology of the Church for me, there is no rupture with the Syllabus of Errors.
For the traditionalists and sedevacantists since LG 16 refers to someone visible there is salvation outside the Church. So there is the new ecumenism with the Anonymous Christiam theory based on salvation outside the Church.Non Christians do not need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation since there is salvation outside the Church is their liberal reasoning.There are known cases of people saved in invincible ignorance (I.I), the baptism of desire(BOD) and baptism of blood (BOB), all without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
Now may be the reader can see why Eric Gajiewski and Sanctus Bonifatius (Gloria TV) do not want to answer if LG 16 is visible or invisible for them, if it refers to an explicit and objective case in the present times or is just hypothetical and speculative.
Similarly sedevacantists Bishops Donald Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada who have written articles against Fr. Leonard Feeney on line, refuse to answer this question.Is LG 16 referring to visible or invisible people in the present times. For many priests in Rome it is a reference to invisible cases in the present tmes.
The sedevacantists however according to their websites and reports have a concept of Vatican Council II which is built upon a false premise.When I inform them about it they tell me not to contact them.While the liberals probably laugh down their sleeves.
Fr.Cekada refuses to apologise for saying that members of the St. Benedict Centers, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are in mortal sin for rejecting the baptism of desire.Now we know that there are no baptism of desire cases in our reality.So why should they say that the baptism of desire is an exception to EENS.The Church Fathers and Church Councils did not say it. St. Ignatius of Loyola, whose feast it is today, did not say it.Hypothetical cases of BOD were never ever relevant or exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.Fr. Cekada assumes they were visible and personally known people who were saved outside the Church and so Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong for him, and in mortal sin.Now that he knows otherwise he does not issue a clarification or correction.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment