Feeneyism is the missing link.If we can put aside being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire for a moment, and then look at Vatican Council II, it is a different Council.
The liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II could only be made with the philosophical error.This interpretation was made by assuming what is hypothetical is not hypothetical.Invisible cases were considered visible.The liberals' famous case of the catechumen who allegedly was known is really unknown.With this false premise(visible cases of the baptism of desire etc) a non traditional conclusion (there is known salvation outside the Church so the dogma has exceptions)was created.Known salvation? Where are the known cases of the baptism of desire in 2017-2018?
The Council Fathers at Vatican Council II, according to the text of the Council, wrongly assumed hypothetical cases were not hypothetical
They wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance referred to physically visible cases, when they could have chosen to see the obvious,that they are invisible people.They do not exist in our human reality.
So when I interpret Vatican Council II with reference to invisible cases being invisible my conclusion is traditional.While the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith interprets Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition, since in their premise they assume invisible cases are visible.
The new theology of Cardinal Ratzinger, Fr.Karl Rahner and Fr.Hans Kung is based upon mixing up what is hypothetical as being defacto and known in the present times.
This was the error of Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston and the U.S Jesuits in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case. The error was not corrected by Pope Pius XII.Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani, who issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, like Cardinal Ottaviani, mixed up what is invisible as being visible.
The magisterium did not support Fr. Leonard Feeney.His excommunication was not lifted even in 1960-65.So the objective mistake in philosophy is there in many places in Vatican Council II (LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc).The Council can be interpreted with two different premises.
Imagine a major Church Council making a wrong inference as a theme. This was Vatican Council II.The secret is out and no one wants to talk about it.
This is a bigger issue than Amoris Laetitia.We Catholics are not obliged to accept the heresy of the magisterium.Today they still choose the false premise when they have a rational option.
When this false theology is avoided the Council is no more a break with Tradition and is no more heretical.This leaves the magisterium with its irrational interpretation, still heretical.They are not willing to correct themselves.
The cardinals and the popes are still interpreting Vatican Council II with this irrational premise which creates a non traditional conclusion.They seem unaware of the choice or they just want to maintain the status quo.
They are unaware that it is the present magisterium, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is in unbelievable heresy.Or they want to let it remain like this since it is acceptable to the political Left.
Catholics could ask Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Cardinal Muller ,Archbishop Guido Pozzo and Archbishop Di Noia to affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with the Feeneyite interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). The cardinals, bishops and priests at the CDF will not do so!
Politically they do not have permission.When Edward Pentin asked them about extra ecclesiam nulla salus Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Di Noia interpreted Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma EENS.For them invisible cases of being saved in invincible ignorance were visible and known. Then they assumed that these unknown people were known examples of salvation outside the Church. This was their interpretation of Vatican Council II.Hypothetical cases were non hypothetical for Archbishop Di Noia in Lumen Gentium 8 and for Cardinal Muller in Lumen Gentium 14.Pope Benedict XVI did the same in the Avvenire interview(March 2016).He suggested that there is known salvation outside the Church and it is mentioned in Vatican Council II. So Vatican Council II for him, with the philosophical error, was ' a development' .So his conclusion was that EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century. First comes the false premise and then the non traditional conclusion follows. In his case he accepted Vatican Council II. In the case of the traditionalists, who use the same reasoning, they reject this conclusion of Vatican Council II.
This false premise and conclusion is officially accepted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the present two popes.
This false premise and conclusion is officially accepted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the present two popes.
They interpret Vatican Council II with LG 16, etc referring to visible cases while for me LG 16 etc refer to invisible cases in the present times. So for me they are not exceptions to the old ecclesiology and extra ecclesiam nulla salus.I can affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with the dogma EENS according to the 16th century missionaries.
The two popes and the CDF will oppose this interpretation even though it is rational and traditional.
This is an objective error which creates heresy and no one is talking about it.
There are professors of philosophy at the Legion of Christ university in Rome with whom I have been in contact with. They will not answer basic questions and are telling each other to also not answer them.These are priests! They are afraid of losing their teaching jobs in Rome.
The Dean of Theology at UPRA Fr.Edward McNamara L.C and the new Dean of Philosophy, an American, will not comment on the philosophical error, which they are forced to teach by a magisterium in heresy.
Priests from other congregations recognize that there is an error but they do not want to be quoted.
In principle the Vatican Council II Fathers assumed hypothetical cases were not hypothetical but objectively visible.
In principle they assumed people in Heaven are objectively visible on earth.
In principle they assumed that we can know of non Catholics on earth saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
In general, as a norm, the Principle of Non Contradiction was violated what is invisible was inferred to be visible and then non traditional conclusions were made.
There are philosophical mistakes in Vatican Council II, objective mistakes.Errors in empirical observation.
From professors of philosophy to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and the two popes they are teaching a lie.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment