All the books on Vatican Council II that have been published could probably have an error in the interpretation of the Council, in its 16 basic documents.Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate,Ad Gentes, Unitatitis Redintigratio, Gaudium et Specs etc were are all interpreted with a false premise to create an artificial rupture with Tradition.
Hypotheticals were assumed to be objective people saved outside the Church.
Now if hypotheticals are not assumed to be objective people saved outside the Church the conclusion is different.The interpretation changes.
The conclusion then is that there is nothing in Lumen Gentium to contradict the past ecclesiology.
There is nothing in Ad Gentes to contradict the past concept of mission based on exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church and all needing to be members with faith and baptism(AG 7) to avoid Hell ( for salvation).
There is nothing in the entire text of Unitatis Redintigratio to contradict the traditional ecumenism of return and the need for Protestants and Orthodox Christians to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid the fires of Hell.
So the present two popes' interpretation of the Council is wrong and so are those of the cardinals and bishops-and the traditionalists.
This is not just a personal opinion. Many agree with me. One has only to look at the text of the Council.It is all there before us. Look at the Council-text differently and the Council changes.Change your premise and change the Church.
It is the same with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).Most people interpret the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) as being practical exceptions to EENS.
BOD, BOB and I.I are 'zero cases says the apologist on EWTN John Martignoni.
Being saved in invincible ignorance technically exists only on paper says Ann Barnhardt.
This is also the theological position of Brother Andre Marie MICM, in his official letter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Diocese of Manchester USA. 1
They are supported by Fr. Stefano Visintin osb, the present Rector of the University of St. Anselm, Rome.Many priests who offer Holy Mass in Italian in Rome agree with him.There is no known baptism of desire case to contradict Fr. Leonard Feeney's concept of outside the Church there is no salvation.
It is the same with the dogma EENS. We can interpret BOD, BOB and I.I as being practical exceptions to EENS and most people do so, even though it is irrational. However we can also accept BOD, BOB and I.I and not see them as physically visible people in 2019.
So they are not literal cases of people saved outside the Church. They do not become practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) made a mistake. Unlike the popes and saints over the centuries, is interprets BOD, BOB and I.I as being exceptions to EENS.
Now we know Vatican Council II does not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS. Vatican Council II and EENS are Feeneyite and rational.
So all those books on Vatican Council II published over 50 years, generally are false propaganda.The Conciliar Church is really Feeneyite and traditional.
Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct. There are no literal cases of the baptism of desire.The CDF( Holy Office) was wrong.
Similarly the CDF was wrong at the Placuet Deo Press Conference ( March 1,2018). There are no literal cases known to us of non Catholics saved outside the Church with elements of sanctification and truth in other religions(LG 8), or, where the truth Church of Christ allegedly subsists.
We cannot know of any one saved outside the Catholic Church who would be an exception to the traditional teaching on the Church having an exclusiveness and superiority in salvation. Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj misled the correspondent of the Associated Press, when she asked him an ideological question.
So all those books on Vatican Council II on your book shelf- throw them out.Also note that papal documents like Redemptoris Missio etc contain the same error.
-Lionel Andrades
It is the same with the dogma EENS. We can interpret BOD, BOB and I.I as being practical exceptions to EENS and most people do so, even though it is irrational. However we can also accept BOD, BOB and I.I and not see them as physically visible people in 2019.
So they are not literal cases of people saved outside the Church. They do not become practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) made a mistake. Unlike the popes and saints over the centuries, is interprets BOD, BOB and I.I as being exceptions to EENS.
Now we know Vatican Council II does not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS. Vatican Council II and EENS are Feeneyite and rational.
So all those books on Vatican Council II published over 50 years, generally are false propaganda.The Conciliar Church is really Feeneyite and traditional.
Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct. There are no literal cases of the baptism of desire.The CDF( Holy Office) was wrong.
Similarly the CDF was wrong at the Placuet Deo Press Conference ( March 1,2018). There are no literal cases known to us of non Catholics saved outside the Church with elements of sanctification and truth in other religions(LG 8), or, where the truth Church of Christ allegedly subsists.
We cannot know of any one saved outside the Catholic Church who would be an exception to the traditional teaching on the Church having an exclusiveness and superiority in salvation. Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj misled the correspondent of the Associated Press, when she asked him an ideological question.
So all those books on Vatican Council II on your book shelf- throw them out.Also note that papal documents like Redemptoris Missio etc contain the same error.
-Lionel Andrades
1
https://catholicism.org/doctrinal-belief.html
OCTOBER 27, 2019
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment