eucharistandmission: Yves Congar and the progressive group at Vatican Council II did not know that the Council was being interpreted with a false premise. Without this premise the Council would still have the old ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and the traditional exclusive salvation theology.

Thursday, August 29, 2019

Yves Congar and the progressive group at Vatican Council II did not know that the Council was being interpreted with a false premise. Without this premise the Council would still have the old ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and the traditional exclusive salvation theology.

Yves Congar and the progressive group at Vatican Council II did not know that the Council was being interpreted with a false premise.1 Without this premise the Council would still have the old ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and the traditional exclusive salvation theology.

Even Cardinal Ottaviani, the Head of the Holy Office(CDF), interpreted extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance (I.I) with the false premise. They referred to visible instead of visible people.

This error was repeated at Vatican Council II. Pope Paul VI then interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise i.e LG 8, LG 16,GS 22 referred to personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church. This was irrational.

The mistake comes from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which was referenced at Vatican Council.

So the same progressive players whom Bishop Barron refersd to maintained the false interpretation of the Council. Even Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did not interpret the Council without the false premise. The result was a schism with the past popes on EENS, the past ecclesiology, ecumenism, mission etc.2

Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger did not tell Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops that they could interpret the Council II without the false premise. Until today the SSPX bishops interpret the Council with the false premise. So they reject or reinterpret other magisterial documents, in a rupture with the past.

So Congar's 'spirit of Vatican Council II' is based upon false philosophy and theology which is not Catholic. It really is deception. Even today people say LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are exceptions to the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) when they really should be saying that they are not exceptions.3

However the bottom line is that even though the progressivists whom Bishop Barron mention were there at the Council, Vatican Council II can be interpreted with the false premise or without it; with Cushingism or with Feeneyism and the conclusion is different.

So we are no more limited to Conger's understanding of the Council, which was irrational and heretical. It was a schism with the popes over the centuries.

It can be corrected easily now.-Lionel Andrades

Their false premise is:-

1. Invisible people are visible.

2.Unknown case of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are personally known.

3.The unknown case of the catechumen who desired the baptism of water but dies before he received it and is saved, is a personally known person.

4.There is known salvation outside the Catholic Church for us human beings.

5.We can see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water.

6.We can physically see non Catholics in Heaven and on earth who are saved without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7).

7.There are non Catholics who are dead- men visible and walking who are saved outside the Church.

8.There are known people in invincible ignorance through no fault of their own, who are saved.

9.There are some Anglicans and Protestants whom we know who are going to Heaven even though they are outside the Catholic Church.

10.There are some non Catholics whom we know, who are dead, and now are in Heaven, even though they were not Catholic.

2
So with the false premise there are objective exceptions to EENS, Athanasius Creed, Nicene Creed, Apostles Creed etc:-

1. The Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation is contradicted.

2. The Nicene Creed in which we say, 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' over the centuries referred to only one known baptism, the baptism of water.The baptism of desire etc cannot be given to someone like the baptism of water.But now the understanding is ' I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins ( desire,blood and ignorance) and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church'.

3. The Apostles Creed says ' we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church'. Over the centuries it was understood that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church and taught that there was no salvation outside the Church.Now unknown cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, and LG 8, UR 3, NA2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, are assumd to be objective examples of salvation outside the Church.

4.In the past three Church Councils defined the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in the extraordinary Magisterium .It was an 'infallible teaching' for Pope Pius X( Letter of the Holy Offie 1949).Now it is obsolete with their being alleged known salvation outside the Church.
5.Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are interpreted with the false premise so they become a rupture with EENS( Feeneyite), the Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc.

6.With the false premise the Catechism of Pope Pius X contradict itself. It affirms the strict interpretation of EENS while invincible invincible ignorance is intepreted as referring to personally known non Catholics saved outside the Chuch.Invincible ignorance is not seen as a hypothetical case only.

7.Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus, Ecclesia in Asia, Balamand Declaration etc were all written upholding the false premise. They did not support exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. So in a subtle way they contradicted EENS(Feeneyite), the Athanasius Creed etc. They did not support the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.They are Christological without the traditional ecclesiocentric ecclesiology. It's Christ without the necessity of membership in the Catholic Church for salvation.
8. Traditional mission based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church is rejected. Since with the false premise, there is salvation outside the Church.
9.Inter faith marriages which are not Sacraments are common held.It is no more adultery. Since the non Catholic spouse could be saved outside the Church it is assumed. A posibility which could only be known to God is assumed to be a practical exception to EENS and a literally known case of salvation outside the Church in a personal case.
10. There is a new heretical ecclesiology at Holy Mass in all the rites and liturgies. The Latin Mass today does not have the same exclusivist ecclesiology of the Tridentine Rite Mass of the missionaries in the 16th century.

People usually say that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are exceptions to the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) when they really should be saying that they are not exceptions.

People have been conditioned to see LG 8 etc as exceptions.

They have been conditioned to see LG 8 etc as objective people, known and visible. But there are no such cases.

The conditioning has come from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO). The liberal theologians assumed the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) were exceptions to EENS when they really should have said that they are not exceptions to EENS.

People have been conditioned to see BOD, BOB and I.I as exceptions.

They have been conditioned to see BOD,BOB and I.I as objective people, known and visible, but there are no such cases.

______________________________