Like I said yesterday we are in the same Catholic Church but the two popes and all the bishops and cardinals interpret magisterial documents differently from me.
Yet I am not in a rupture with the past magisterium of the Church nor denying any magisterial document issued by any of the popes. Nobody can accuse me of rejecting the Nicene and Athanasius Creed, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church,Dominus Iesus etc.
And I admit that the two popes and all the cardinals and bishops would say that they too affirm all these mentioned magisterial documents.
I would agree that they do but point out that they interpret these documents with an irrational premise of which they are not aware of.I avoid the premise.
So their interpretation of Vatican Council II for example, is a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the magisterium and missionaries of the 16th century. For me there is no rupture.
Their interpretation of the Nicene Creed says ' I believe three or more known baptisms, desire, blood and invincible ignorance and they exclude the baptism of water'.For me it is 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and it is only one known baptism, the baptism of water'.So there is no rupture with the past for me.
They deny the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation.Since for them the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are examples of known salvation outside the Church. I do not deny the Athanasius Creed since BOD, BOB and I.I are invisible and unknown cases for me in 2017. So they cannot be objective examples of salvation outside the Church for me.Doctrinally and theologically I am not in a break with the past.
They use a false premise to interpret magisterial documents i.e invisible people are visible, unknown cases of the baptism of desire etc are known. I avoid this irrationality.Hypothetical cases for me are just hypothetical. Theoretical cases are not practically seen in the present times for me.
They violate the Principle of Non Contradiction by assuming people saved in Heaven are also visible on earth.For me if any one was saved with BOD, BOB and I.I with or without the baptism of water, it would be an unknown case. It would only be known to God.So it is a 'zero case' in our reality, as the apologist John Martignoni put it.
So I yesterday wrote the following.
Pope Francis and Pope Benedict are the popes.I accept this. But I affirm the dogma EENS in harmony with Vatican Council II. Vatican Council II is a not a rupture with the dogma EENS as it was known to the magisterium and missionaries of the 16th century for me. It is not so for them. I affirm the Nicene Creed but without the irrational premise. So I am not affirming the Nicene Creed like the two popes. Similarly I accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But unlike the two popes and most bishops and priests I do not interpret the Catechism (1994) with an irrational premise.
This is not an issue of conservative and liberal,traditionalist and heretic.This is something overlooked in the Church. Even the Polish, Hungarian and African bishops are mistakenly interpreting Church documents with the premise which comes from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.
MAY 22, 2017
Polish President and Prime Minister must be aware of ideologues of new doctrine
Poland consecration to Christ the King : Collegiality in Vatican Council II is no more an issue when there is unity on correct doctrine
Catholics needs to work for the separation of State and secularism and the non separation of Church and State even if opposed by Fr.Spadero s.j and the Vatican