Repost : To understand what I am saying you have to identify the false premise and conclusion
NOVEMBER 2, 2016
To understand what I am saying you have to identify the false premise and conclusion
To understand what I am saying you have to identify the false premise and conclusion. Then you have to re-interpret Vatican Council II without this irrational premise and non traditional conclusion. Presently about everyone supports the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston, which used a false premise to create a non traditional result. When the Letter from Rome said that the baptism of desire (BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) were exceptions to EENS and so not everyone needed to enter the Church for salvation,it made a wrong inference. It inferred that there were known cases of the BOD and I.I in 1949.This is implied.SInce only if there are known cases there could be exceptions.
The Letter inferred that there were known and visible non Catholics saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. So it presumed: 1.There were physically visible cases of the BOD and being saved in I.I. 2.There were hypothetical cases which were explicit, objectively visible. 3.There were physically visible cases of BOD and I.I without the baptism of water. So the conclusion was: There were 'known exceptions', 'practical exceptions' to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS (Feeneyite). This is the false premise( invisible cases are physically visible) and conclusion( these 'visible' cases are exceptions to Feeneyite EENS) which is common in the Catholic Church as the Arian heresy was once common in the past. This is a magisterial heresy since 1949 and it has not been corrected by popes and cardinals since the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. The error of there being known- to-us cases of BOD and I.I was generally accepted and so it was incorporated into Vatican Council II.Even more hypothetical cases were added.It was assumed that there were different possibilities of being saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church e.g 'seeds of the Word'(AG 11).There is also the 'visible for us' LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc.
So like with EENS, we have to identify the irrational premise and conclusion also with Vatican Council II. We re-interpret Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases just being hypothetical. So they are no more exceptions to EENS.
The result is that Vatican Council II cleared of the irrational premise and conclusion,is what I call Vatican Council II, Feeneyite.
Presently everyone else is affirming Vatican Council II, Cushingite.It includes the premise and non traditional conclusion.Hypothetical cases are assumed to be explicitly visible in 2016.Then it is concluded that Vatican Council II(Cushingite) is a rupture with EENS( Feeneyite).
It is also concluded by the liberals that Vatican Council II (Cushingite) is in harmony with a new EENS ( Cushingite).This EENS(C) is based upon invisible cases being visible one earth, hypothetical cases being personally known, practical exceptions to Tradition.
With such sophisticated logic the enemies of the Church did away with the dogma EENS.They created a Vatican Council II based on an irrationality and error.A false logic.For Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr.Karl Rahner S.J it was the new theology.
It's now redundant.The redundancy has begun.We have found the missing link.Feeneyism is the missing link which will bring it down.The Catholic Church will return back to its traditional and rational salvation theology and philosophy.-Lionel Andrades