Sedevacantists do not recognise the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) and so wrongly criticize Vatican Council II and the popes from John XXIII.They use the LOHO reasoning.Then mistakenly believe that the fault lies with Vatican Council II.
The LOHO reasoning is to assume hypothetical cases are non hypothetical.
The LOHO reasoning is to assume people in Heaven are visible on earth.
The LOHO reasoning is that there are known people saved outside the Church.
The LOHO reasoning is people who have allegedly died outside the Church in the past, are visible today and so are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The LOHO reasoning is that there are known people who have died with the baptism of desire and baptism of blood and without the baptism of water and people have seen them in Heaven in this condition.Example, St. Emerentiana.
These people who have died outside the Church in the past, are visible today and so are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
For the LOHO invisible and hypothetical cases of the baptism of 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.He was supposed to say that invisible people are visible examples of salvation outside the Church and they were personally known to him.
So sedevacantists use the LOHO reasoning when they read the Catechism of Pope Pius X, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994) and the popes and saints of the past.
Whenever these documents mention BOD, BOB and I.I, for the sedevacantists and traditionalists, they refer to real people saved outside the Church. This is false.They refer to only speculative and theoretical cases. Yet for the sedevacantists with their LOHO reasoning the past Catechisms contradict Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This was the LOHO reasoning of the Magisterium in 1949.First, invisible people are considered to be visible. Then they are assumed to be examples of people who are saved without the baptism of water in the Church. Then the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is rejected.
Whenever these documents mention BOD, BOB and I.I, for the sedevacantists and traditionalists, they refer to real people saved outside the Church. This is false.They refer to only speculative and theoretical cases. Yet for the sedevacantists with their LOHO reasoning the past Catechisms contradict Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This was the LOHO reasoning of the Magisterium in 1949.First, invisible people are considered to be visible. Then they are assumed to be examples of people who are saved without the baptism of water in the Church. Then the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is rejected.
But the Catechisms, Mystici Corporis, Quanta Cura etc did not and do not contradict Feeneyite EENS. They are not a rupture with EENS, as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
In principle, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are all hypothetical cases, references to unknown people in 2018. So they do not contradict the Syllabus of Errors, Mystici Corporis, Quanta Cura and EENS.But with the LOHO reasoning for the sedevacantists LG 8 etc refer to known people saved outside the Church and so they are exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria s.j made a mistake in the question and answer session of the Press Conference on Placuit Deo and none of them noticed it.
He assumed Lumen Gentium 8 referred, to known people in the present times (2018).This is pure LOHO.
Even most of the Church infers Lumen Gentium 8 ( non Catholics saved with elements of sanctification and truth) refer to known people.Archbishop Augustine Di Noia reasoned like this in the interview with Edward Pentin when he was asked about extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Bishop Bernard Fellay has used LOHO reasoning in one of his Letters to Friends and Benefactors. LOHO reasoning is common among the sedevacantist bishops Sanborn,Dolan and Pirvarunas.
So they have not noticed the LOHO mistake of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on March 1 but it is also the mistake of Catholics in general.
Only known people can be exceptions to EENS. Invisible people are irrelevant. People who do not exist in our reality cannot be an exception to EENS. But who is going to tell this to Prefect of the CDF ?
If the sedevacantists realized that Cardinal Ladaria made a mistake it would indicate that they understand that there is no reason to remain in sedevacantism because of Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades
_______________
MARCH 19, 2018
Today is the 19th day and sedevacantists and traditionalists have not noted that Cardinal Luiz Ladaria s.j made a mistake in the question and answer session of the Press Conference on Placuit Deo.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/today-is-19th-day-and-sedevcantists-and.html
MARCH 22, 2018
Cardinal Braz de Avez and Fr.Manelli use the false premise ( Graphics)
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/cardinal-braz-de-avez-and-frmanelli-use.html
MARCH 21, 2018
Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate must announce immediately that they affirm Vatican Council II without the Ladaria Error and in harmony with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church and the Syllabus of Errors
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/franciscan-sisters-of-immaculate-must.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment