Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Once these terms and principles are understood you can re-interpret Vatican Council II.It would be unbelievable for most Catholics.

 Catholics can re-interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church in harmony with the past exclusivist  ecclesiology of the Church, the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the Syllabus of Errors but first they have to reinterpret theological and philosophical terms with which they are familiar.It is a new way of looking at the old Magisterial documents, which really is 'the old way'.I call the old way Feeneyism and the new way, presently popular and official, Cushingism.
Feeneyism avoids the use of an irrational premise, while Cushingism depends on that irrational premise.
 
Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reasoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).There are no explicit cases pf non Catholics being saved outside the Church. Since an objective case saved would only be known to God.So for us humans there are no exceptions to the dogma EENS. Everyone needs to be incorporated into the Catholic Church as a member for salvation and we do not know of any exception to this traditional interpretation of EENS.So with Feeneyism, EENS today is like it was for the missionaries and magisterium of the 16th century.
Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning.It assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS.There are physically visible exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church for salvation.This is the inference.Cushingism assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle, all hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.So it uses this false premise to reject the traditional interpretation of EENS.
Irrational premise: It is assuming hypothetical cases are not hypothetical but instead are objective cases in the present times.
It assumes invisible and unknown people are visible and unknown in our reality.
Baptism of Desire ( premise-free): It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality , the baptism of desire, is not relevant to the dogma EENS.This would be an interpretation with Feeneyism.
Baptism of Desire (with the false premise): It refers to the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved.A known person is assumed to be real on earth, we know his name and surname in the present times or the time when he was supposed to be an example of someone saved outside the Church.This would be an interpretation with Cushingism.
Invincible Ignorance ( premise-free): This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is a hypothetical case it is not an exception to the dogma EENS.The false premise was not used.This would be an interpretation with Feeneyism.
Invincible Ignorance (with the false premise): This refers to the explicit case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church because he was in ignorance.Since it is an exception to the dogma EENS it is inferred to be someone objectively known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational.This would be an interpretation with Cushingism
Council of Florence: One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exception.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was premise-free.
Liberal theologians: They re-interpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.They used the false premise.This would be an interpretation with Cushingism

















Vatican Council II (with the premise):
It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times.With the false inference Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.This would be an interpretation with Cushingism
Vatican Council II ( premise-free):It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases only.They are are unknown personally in the present times. Invisible people in 2018 cannot be a rupture with the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors. An exception must be there to be an exception.




So Vatican Council II (premise free) is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( premise-free),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).This would be an interpretation with Feeneyism.





Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston:(with the false premise)
It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.It used the false premise.
This would be an interpretation with Cushingism
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( premise-free). It means interpreting the first part of the the Letter without the false premise.Only the first part.It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.However the second part of the Letter contradicts the first part since it uses the false premise.
It wrongly assumes hypothetical cases are objectively visible and so they are exceptions to the first part of the Letter.This would be an interpretation with Feeneyism.
Baltimore Catechism: It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So the desire for baptism of an un known catechumen was called a baptism and placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with this confusion.It can be interpreted premise-free.
Catechism of Pope X: It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.It can be re-interpreted as being premise-free. The references to invincible ignorance etc have to be interpreted without the false premise. So it does not contradict the dogma EENS( premise-free).This would be an interpretation with Feeneyism.
Nicene Creed ( with the premise): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means there are more than three known baptisms when the false premise is used in the interpretation. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc.This is an irrational but common understanding.This would be an interpretation with Cushingism
Nicene Creed ( premise-free): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.
This would be an interpretation with Feeneyism.







New Theology: : (with the premise) It refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.It is of course based on the false premise.
This would be an interpretation with Cushingism
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( with the false premise).It refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto convert into the Church in the present times, since there are exceptions.The baptism of desire( with the premise), baptism of blood( with the premise) and being saved in invincible ignorance( with the premise) are exceptions to dogma as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
This would be an interpretation with Cushingism
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( premise-free): It refers to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.Invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not visible exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Catholic Church for salvation.This would be an interpretation with Feeneyism.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( with the premise): CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contradiction. Also CCC 848 is based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS( premise-free). So this is an interpretation of the Catechism with the false premise.
This would be an interpretation with Cushingism
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( premise-free): CCC 1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known cases in the present times of God not being not limited to the Sacraments(CCC1257).
When CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needing to formally enter the Church.It is a reference to a hypothetical case and not somebody known. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation.
This would be an interpretation with Feeneyism.
So once these terms and principles are understood well you can re-interpret Vatican Council II.It would be  unbelievable for most Catholics.-Lionel Andrades

January 26, 2018

Hilary White and Massimo Faggioli interpret the Catechism, Vatican Council II and Letter of the Holy Office with hypothetical cases not being hypothetical : so there is a rupture with Tradition (with graphics)

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/01/hilary-white-and-massimo-faggioli.html

































































































-Lionel Andrades



RELEVANT LABELS/ TAGS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THIS BLOG (Click on link to access)
  • Vatican Council II( premise free)(2)
  • Vatican Council II(Cushingite).(5)
  • Vatican Council II(Feeneyite)(8)
  • Vatican Council II(premise free)(2)
  • Vatican Council II(premise-free)(6)
    •
  • Vatican Council II and EENS(2)
    • ____________________________________


    Posted by at
    Labels: ,

    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)