OBJECTIVE MISTAKE IN 1949 LETTER REPEATED AT VATICAN COUNCIL II
There was an objective mistake made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston, which could not be Magisterial and guided by the Holy Spirit. That same mistake is there in the text of Vatican Council II.So again neither can it be Magisterial. In fact this error is repeated as a kind of theme in Vatican Council II and it could tempt someone to reject Vatican Council II in general, as not being magisterial.It is not guided, at least in the common error, by the Holy Spirit.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a mistake when it assumed that invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) were physically visible cases. So the Letter considered physically visible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I as being objective exceptions to the traditional teaching on all needing to be visible members of the Catholic Church for salvation.But there are no such physically visible cases known practically.
ST.THOMAS AQUINAS DID NOT MIX UP HYPOTHETICAL AS BEING OBJECTIVE
St. Thomas Aquinas held the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus but he did not infer that the man in the forest in invincible ignorance, was a personally known case.For him the man in the forest to whom God would send a preacher, since he was to be saved, was not an objective exception to all needing to enter the Church for salvation.It was a hypothetical case.An invisible person. This is something obvious. It is common sense.
So this false reasoning was a mistake of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office.It was a mistake of the liberal theologians in Boston and especially among the Jesuits.
CUSHINGITES PRESENT AT VATICAN COUNCIL II
The same Jesuits were present at Vatican Council II and so was Cardinal Richard Cushing.
Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 state all need faith and baptism for salvation but also suggest that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions.
CUSHINGITES AT CDF INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH THE FALSE REASONING
So the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS is rejected by Pope Benedict and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj, in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission.BOD, BOB and I.I were exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS for Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.Similarly at the Placuet Deo Press Conference,Lumen Gentium 8 was an exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS, for Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj, Prefect of the CDF.
WHY DID THEY MENTION BOD, BOB AND I.I IN VATICAN COUNCIL II?
So mentioning BOD and I.I in Vatican Council II with reference to the orthodox passages which support exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church was a mistake.
BOD, BOB and I.I are irrelevant and not exceptions to the teaching on all needing faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7).Only by assuming that BOD, BOB and I.I referred to known and physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Church, would they be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of EENS.This was the ruse used.
So the Council Fathers assumed that BOD, BOB and I.I were not just hypothetical cases but known people saved outside the Church. This was an objective mistake.
They violated the Principle of Non Contradiction.Since if someone is saved with BOD, BOB and I.I he or she would be in Heaven and not visible on earth. This person could not be in two places at the same time.
But in principle Vatican Council II assumes that hypothetical cases(LG 8, LG 16, UR 3 etc) are objective exceptions to the strict interpretation of EENS. Hypothetical references in UR 3, GS 22, LG 8, NA 2 etc were placed alongside orthodox passages on salvation.
This cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit but it is human error.A great part of Vatican Council II carries this error in reasoning. In this sense the Council cannot be Magisterial. Since the teaching of the Magisterium has to be guided by the Holy Spirit.The Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake.-Lionel Andrades
NOVEMBER 5, 2016
Vatican Council II is the only Council in which an objective mistake was made and was approved by the magisterium. Invisible cases ( baptism of desire etc) were assumed to be visible
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2016/11/vatican-council-ii-is-only-council-in.html
There is a mistake in Vatican Council II : two popes need to be shown that in principle hypothetical cases are not exceptions to EENS
https://gloria.tv/article/rU2TmdKupWos44H4tkB32abkH
Ralph Martin and Robert Fastiggi do not deny that Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise and non traditional conclusion
https://gloria.tv/article/3Ebr24UKTj4MAvDVSb2mrGipP
AUGUST 26, 2017
Pope Paul VI made a mistake in Vatican Council II : error repeated in Amoris Laetitia http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2017/08/pope-paul-vi-made-mistake-in-vatican.html
AUGUST 25, 2017
Archbishop Fernandes and Louie Verrechio interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise : lesson for the SSPX and possible canonical status
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/08/archbishop-fernandes-and-louie.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment