Thursday, May 17, 2018

The Council Fathers made the same objective errors in 1965 as did Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr.Luiz Ladaria s.j in the ITC theological papers

As expected there is no denial from Cardinal Luiz Ladaria s.j and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF). The International Theological Commission (ITC) made an objective error in two theological papers 1) Christianity and the World Religions and 2) The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die  without being baptised.The mistake was approved by Pope Benedict, Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Archbishop Guido Pozzo and others.1
1) They do not deny that they assume possibilities of salvation, which can be known only to God, were mistaken to be known non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church in the present time e.g 1949, 1965, 2017-2018 etc.
There are no such non Catholics.This is a factual mistake.2
2) They do not deny that they wrongly assumed invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I)  were visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).This is also an objective error.There are no such objective cases in 2018.

3) They do not deny that they wrongly assumed LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc were objective examples of non Catholics  saved outside the Church.This was false.We cannot see or meet someone saved outside the Church.
4) So when they considered LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being objective exceptions to EENS it was an objective mistake.This is something obvious.

So the CDF cannot issue a clarification saying Lionel Andrades was wrong since there are known cases in 2018 of non Catholics saved with BOD, BOB and I.I and without the baptism of water. Neither can the CDF say that there are known cases of non Catholics saved in 2018 without the baptism of water and instead with the references mentioned in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc.
The CDF knows that there are no such known people and so there is an error in the theological papers of the ITC.
The same error was made during Vatican Council II (1960-1965).Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation and yet also mentions being saved in invincible ignorance.It was a mistake to mention invincible ignorance in Ad Gentes 7.Since there are no practical exceptions to all needing faith and baptism for salvation.
This was an error. The same error was made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Similarly Lumen Gentium 14 says all need faith and baptism but mentions the case of the catechuman this was an error.There is no known case of a catechuman saved outside the Church.This too was an oversight of the Council Fathers.An unknown catechumen could not be an exception or relevant to all needing faith and baptism for salvation.
When the popes and saints referred to this catechumen or someone saved in invincible ignorance it was always to a hypothetical case. So they affirmed BOD, BOB and I.I and also the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. There was no 'development' for them.So Mystici Corporis, Quanta Cura and the Catechisms of Trent and Pius X do not contradict Feeneyite EENS.
The Council Fathers  made the same objective errors in 1965 as did Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr.Luiz Ladaria s.j in the ITC theological papers.-Lionel Andrades


MAY 15, 2018

Image result for Photo of Cardinal Ratzinger as Archbishop of Munich

This is a scandal


Here is Christianity and the World Religions of the International Theological Commission which he approved along with Cardinal Ladaria in 1997. Notice how the theology is Cushingite.So there is a rupture with Tradition.Cushingism is responsible for his hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.

66. In his encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pius XII addresses the question, How are those who attain salvation outside visible communion with the Church related to her? He says that they are oriented to the mystical body of Christ by a yearning and desire of which they are not aware (DS 3821).( But this is a reference  by Pope Pius XII to hypothetical and invisible cases.This is something obvious.It is common sense.) The opposition of the American Jesuit Leonard Feeney, who insisted on the exclusivist interpretation of the expression extra ecclesiam nulla solus, afforded the occasion for the letter of the Holy Office, dated 8 August ,1949, to the archbishop of Boston, which rejected Feeney s interpretation and clarified the teaching of Pius XII. (So he means hypothetical cases are objective exceptions to Feeneyite EENS)  The letter distinguishes between the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation (necessitas praecepti) and the necessity of the indispensable means of salvation (intrinseca necessitas); in relationship to the latter, the Church is a general help for salvation (DS 3867—69).(O.K,Hypothetically but what has this to do with EENS ? The Letter made an irrational inference too.)  In the case of invincible ignorance the implicit desire of belonging to the Church suffices; this desire will always be present when a man aspires to conform his will to that of God (DS 3870).(Again he is referring to an unknown person so what is this mentioned with reference to EENS? Why? Since his new theology is Cushingite.) But faith, in the sense of Hebrews 11:6, and love are always necessary with intrinsic necessity (DS 3872).
67. Vatican Council II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But in using it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation.(Since he is a Cushingite he interprets Lumen Gentium 14 as referring to known people saved outside the Church and so there are known people saved in invincible ignorance.So only those who know and are not in ignorance need to enter the Church for him and not all non Catholics in general. This is one of the heights of Cushingism) The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII,( The teaching of Pope Pius XII on EENS with known cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.Unknown cases are known exceptions. This is Cushingism again.) but emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this expression.(Vaguely supporting Cushingism)

68. In contrast to Pius XII, the council refused to speak of a votum implicitum (implicit desire) and applied the concept of the votum only to the explicit desire of catechumens to belong to the Church (LG 14).(The catechumen who is saved with implicit or explicit desire is a hypothetical case. So why is it mentioned here ? Since it is not a hypothetical case for Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr. Luiz Ladaria s.j. They are Cushingites). With regard to non-Christians, it said that they are ordered in diverse ways to the people of God.(He does not say that they are all oriented to Hell. Since that would be the traditional Feeneyite theology with unknown cases not known exceptions to traditional EENS) In accord with the different ways with which the salvific will of God embraces non-Christians, the council distinguished four groups: first, Jews; second, Muslims; third, those who without fault are ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and do not know the Church but who search for God with a sincere heart and try to fulfill his will as known through conscience; fourth, those who without fault have not yet reached an express knowledge of God but who nonetheless try to lead a good life (LG 16). (Being a Cushingite he saying here that the exceptions are the ordinary means of salvation. He also contradicts the latter part of his Cushingite Redemptoris Missio).

Even ITC's The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptised is also presented with Cushingite theology.

58. In the face of new problems and situations and of an exclusive interpretation of the adage(it was a dogma  defined by three Church Councils in the Extraordinary Magisterium and not an adage)salus extra ecclesiam non est”, (it was always extra ecclesiam nulla salus) the magisterium, in recent times, has articulated a more nuanced understanding as to the manner in which a saving relationship with the Church can be realized.(He is referring to his Cushingite interpretation. His 'nuanced version' of course is not the traditional exclusivist understanding of salvation) The Allocution of Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam (1854) clearly states the issues involved: “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it, will perish in the flood.(This is traditional Feeneyite theology which he will contradict in the next line by assuming unknown cases of being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to all needing to enter the Catholic Church for salvation) On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord” (In other words they are exceptions to EENS  for the ITC and so there is no more an exclusive interpretation.This is his familiar Cushingite theology) 
-Lionel Andrades


MAY 12, 2018

Cardinal Ratzinger made an objective error in Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus : we can undo the mistake and re-interpret Vatican Council II (Graphics)

APRIL 6, 2018

No denial from the Vatican : SSPX can make the same announcement as me (Graphics)

APRIL 6, 2018

No denial from the Vatican : SSPX can make the same announcement as me (Graphics)

No comments: