If Bishop Bernard Fellay recognises the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) he will not have to criticize Vatican Council II and the popes from John XXIII.Since the interpretation of the Council changes.It 's traditional.
Now Bishop Fellay sees Lumen Gentium 8 as an exception to Tradition, since for him, Vatican council II is saying there are known people saved outside the Church with 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8).1
This was how the LOHO reasoned.
For the LOHO invisible and hypothetical cases of the baptism fo desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) were visible exceptions.In 1949 they could allegedly see people saved outside the Church with BOD, BOB and I.I.So Fr. Leonard Feeney was criticized for holding the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.
Now what if Bishop Fellay says invisible and hypothetical cases of 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) are simply hypothetical cass in 2018.They are not known people. Then Lumen Gentium 8 does not contradict the past understanding of exclusive salvation in the Church, the Syllabus of Errors and an ecumenism of return.
The interpretation of Vatican Council II completely changes with this small change.He can no more blame the popes since John XXIII.Vatican Council II is traditional.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Dietrich von Hildebrand and Michael Davis did not know this.Fr.Nicholas Gruner, John Vennari and Atila Guimares were also using the LOHO reasoning.It is the same with Pope Benedict and Archbishop Guido Pozzo.
So when Bishop Fellay 'does know', he simply has to announce that he affirms Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS, the past exclusivist ecclesiology, the Syllabus of Errors and an ecumenism of return. Outside the Church there is no known salvation for him.
The ecclesiology of the Catholic Church before and after Vatian Council II is the same and so he would ask the two popes and the Vatican Curia to also interpret the Council without the LOHO error.-Lionel Andrades
1.
March 23, 2018
So the fault does not lie with Vatican Council II but how they interpret the Council and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 : Bishop Bernard Fellay's mistake
This was how the LOHO reasoned.
For the LOHO invisible and hypothetical cases of the baptism fo desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) were visible exceptions.In 1949 they could allegedly see people saved outside the Church with BOD, BOB and I.I.So Fr. Leonard Feeney was criticized for holding the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.
Now what if Bishop Fellay says invisible and hypothetical cases of 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) are simply hypothetical cass in 2018.They are not known people. Then Lumen Gentium 8 does not contradict the past understanding of exclusive salvation in the Church, the Syllabus of Errors and an ecumenism of return.
The interpretation of Vatican Council II completely changes with this small change.He can no more blame the popes since John XXIII.Vatican Council II is traditional.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Dietrich von Hildebrand and Michael Davis did not know this.Fr.Nicholas Gruner, John Vennari and Atila Guimares were also using the LOHO reasoning.It is the same with Pope Benedict and Archbishop Guido Pozzo.
So when Bishop Fellay 'does know', he simply has to announce that he affirms Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS, the past exclusivist ecclesiology, the Syllabus of Errors and an ecumenism of return. Outside the Church there is no known salvation for him.
The ecclesiology of the Catholic Church before and after Vatian Council II is the same and so he would ask the two popes and the Vatican Curia to also interpret the Council without the LOHO error.-Lionel Andrades
1.
March 23, 2018
So the fault does not lie with Vatican Council II but how they interpret the Council and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 : Bishop Bernard Fellay's mistake
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment