What is the difference between the old and new theology? How is the new theology created ?
I wrote in the last blog post :
Basically all I am saying is that there are no physically visible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I), since if they existed they would be in Heaven. Upon this reality I go back to the old theology.1
When invisible BOD, BOB and I.I are considered being physically visible then there is a new reality.Upon this new reality a new theology is created.
In the old theology the premise is invisible people are invisible.
In the new theology the premise is invisible people are visible.
In the old theology the inference is outside the Church there is no salvation, there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
In the new theology they infer outside the Church there is salvation and so there are objective exceptions to EENS. 'That one may obtain eternal salvation it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member',states the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO).This is the New Theology and it is heretical.
With the old theology the conclusion is that Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma EENS.With the New Theology, we have the common conclusion, which is the opposite. Liberals and traditionalists say Vatican Council II contradicts EENS.
So to go back to the old theology, we do not have to create a new, new theology.We simply look at the issue rationally.Invisible people in general are always invisible for us humans.
So the new theology is based on a lie. It is deception and yet it's reasoning was used at Vatican Council II and in the LOHO.
Also when Cardinal Gibbon called the case of an unknown catechumen a baptism of desire and placed it in the Baptism section of the Baltimore Catechism,it was asking for trouble.The baptism of desire is invisible and the baptism of water is visible.
Now Fr. Brian Harrison says everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation but he uses the new theology which could indicate that this is not true and not every one needs to enter the Church.
Pope Benedict uses the New Theology and so he says that EENS today is no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century( for whom BOD, BOB and I.I did not refer to visible people).
Cardinal Ladaria used the New Theology at the Placuet Deo Press Conference when he said that the Church no more has an exclusiveness and superiority in salvation.He cited Lumen Gentium 8 ( interpreted with the false premise and inference).Edward Pentin did not object since he uses the same reasoning.
Michael and Peter Dimond look at EENS with the old theology but view BOD, BOB and I.I with the New Theology.So they reject BOD, BOB and I.I.
I do not reject BOD, BOB and I.I since I do not interpret them with the irrational reasoning of the New Theology.
I reject BOD, BOB and I.I being exceptions to EENS since only with the irrationality of the New Theology can they be exceptions.
The Most Holy Family Monastery and the St.Benedict Centers interpret Vatican Council II with the New Theology and then reject it since it is obviously a rupture with EENS and the past ecclesiology.
I do not interpret invisible cases as being visible and so the Council nowhere contradicts EENS, the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return for me.
When Pope Francis proclaimed the kerygma in Evangelii Gaudium, without the necessity of membership in the Catholic Church for salvation, he could do it only with the new theology.
When Pope Francis and the Masons criticize triumphalism they are referring to the old theology which does not have a false premise and inference.
So now Michael and Peter Dimond have a choice. They can interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise and inference and then the Council will not have a hermeneutic of rupture with EENS.
The SSPX can do the same. They would then be affirming Vatican Council II and so canonical recognition would be their right.The St. Benedict Centers could ask their bishops in the diocese of Worcester and Manchester, if every one could interpret BOD, BOB and I.I as referring to invisible cases.It is rational and the conclusion would be traditional.
Bishop Mark Pivarunas and Fr. Benedict Hughes could clarify on the Congregatio Mariae Regina Immaculatae(CMRI) website that the BOD is not an exception to EENS.
Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada could do the same at the sedevacantist seminary in Florida, USA.Their articles on Fr. Leonard Feeney and the baptism of desire are now obsolete.
During doctrinal talks with the Vatican, Archbishop Guido Pozzo must be asked if hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II can be interpreted as just being hypothetical.
Pope Benedict and Cardinal Ladaria must apologize for two papers of the International Theological Commission in which the false premise and inference were used. They are Christianity and the World Religions and The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without baptism.
Pope Benedict could acknowledge that Redemptoris Missio, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Dominus Iesus and other Church-documents,were written using the New Theology.-Lionel Andrades
1
DECEMBER 25, 2018
'Tis the season to be Catholic
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/12/tis-season-to-be-catholic.html
Posts
