Monday, August 6, 2018

Doesn't Louie see his heresy somewhere in all this?

Louie Verrechio has interpreted UR 3 in Vatican Council II, with the false premise.1   
I responded with a blog post and e-mailed him the correction. 2
He wrongly assumed that a hypothetical case is non hypothetical and instead is an example of salvation outside the Church. So with this false premise ( invisible non Catholics saved are visible) there is a false inference. For him there are visible and known Catholics saved outside the Church and they are exceptions to EENS. So of course,for him, Vatican Council II( UR 3) contradicts EENS and the old ecclesiology and this is heresy.He calls it heresy.
He blames Vatican Council II but the fault lies with him.
I affirm Vatican Council II without the false premise. Invisible cases of non Catholics saved are not visible.The Council is in harmony with traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).There is no heresy.Vatican Council II is not heretical.
Louie  could also interpret Vatican Council II like me.There would be no confusion and heresy.
So for me it is Louie Verrecchio who would be in heresy, for example, with the Magisterium of the 16th century.
In the 16th century if the Jesuits interpreted EENS with invisible baptism of desire being a visible exception to all needing to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation,it would be heresy.
Yet this is how Louie and the traditionalists interpret Vatican Council II today.
So he would be interpreting all the old catechisms( Council of Trent, Pius X etc), which affirm the past ecclesiology, with hypothetical cases not being hypothetical.So BOD, BOB and I.I mentioned in those old catechisms would become a rupture with the past ecclesiology, and EENS, as it was interpreted in the 16th century.
Those catechisms would also be a rupture for Louie, with the Syllabus of Errors on an ecumenism of return and no salvation for non Christians.Since BOD, BOB and I.I would be exceptions, of course.This was the reasoning of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
So with BOD, BOB and I.I referring to known people saved outside the Church, the old catechisms are a rupture with EENS, as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
Vatican Council II is rupture with EENS as it was known to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century.
Vatican Council II would also be a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors for him.
Vatican Council II is a rupture with the old catechisms,EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.It would also have changed the interpretation of the Nicene Creed.
What a mess.
Doesn't Louie see his heresy somewhere in all this?
-Lionel Andrades


Bishop Fellay: A troubling interview


JULY 31, 2018

AKA Catholic

UR 3 with Cushingism is heretical since it rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.With Feeneyism it is not heretical

 AUGUST 5, 2018

There is not going to be a Restoration with Cushingism. Mattei and Ferrara are part of the problem. So is Whispers of Restoration and 1Peter5

JUNE 25, 2015

For you UR 3 and LG 8 are exceptions to the dogma.Why? Who do you know today who is saved as mentioned in UR 3,LG 8?

MAY 8, 2018

So what is Louie waiting for , what prevents him from interpreting Vatican Council II rationally ?

FEBRUARY 5, 2018

So the fault does not lie with Vatican Council II but with the traditionalist interpretation of the Council by using Cushingite instead of Feeneyite theology

No comments: