So that Catholics are not going to know about the deception of the Magisteriuim ?

In a parting shot Strynkowski admonishes Weinandy for going public, but the irony is breathtaking:

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, urged that dissent from ordinary Magisterium should be disclosed privately to church authority—see “Donum Veritatis” (No. 30). In a world and even an ecclesial environment of sound bites and facile partisanship, that becomes even wiser advice. https://hughosb.com/2017/11/03/laffaire-weinandy-a-watershed/

Lionel:

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, urged that dissent from ordinary Magisterium should be disclosed privately to church authority.Was this to protect the errors of Cardinal Ratzinger?

Now may be some one can remind him privately about what I have been writing on this blog for the last fews years.

I repeat:How we interpret the Fr. Leonard Feeney case decides how we are going to interpret Vatican Council II.Since they are both related.They are related with a  faulty reasoning, which we can avoid.So if it is wrongly assumed that invisible for us cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are visible exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS there will be one conclusion. If we assume that these are just invisible for us cases in the present times there will be another conclusion.Since the premise is different the conclusion will also be different.

The false reasoning of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was referenced in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. He also repeated this error in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission.

So the with the same reasoning he assumed that LG 16( invincible ignorance),UR 3( imperfect communion with the Church)  and other hypothetical and invisible cases were visible examples of salvation outside the Church.He then put away the dogma EENS, which was defined by the popes in the extra ordinary an ordinary magisterium.

For me this is calculated dissent by Cardinal Ratzinger.

I interpret  BOD, BOB and I.I as being hypothetical and theoretical cases so they cannot be exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.

Similarly I interpret LG 16, UR 3, LG 8, GS 22, etc as referring to hypothetical and theoretical cases and so Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the past ecclesiology of the Church on an ecumenism of return.

So there is a big difference in our interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS.

Should Catholics continue to remain silent about this? There probably was a conspiracy and it is being hidden ?

The Balamand Declaration and the Joint Declaration of Justification was based on this error of Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, urged that dissent from ordinary Magisterium should be disclosed privately to church authority—see “Donum Veritatis” (No. 30). In a world and even an ecclesial environment of sound bites and facile partisanship, that becomes even wiser advice

Why? So that Catholics are not going to know about the deception of the Magisteriuim ?

-Lionel Andrades