When I say this I assume Faggioli and Winters will interpret the Council rationally and honestly.
As adult, responsible men they will not claim that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to real people in 2019, 'physical bodies' in Newton's time and space.This is a being honest.
So Massimo Faggioli and Micahel Sean Winters can no more interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition(EENS, Syllabusof Errors, Athanasius Creed etc).
Michael Sean Winters affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) since if asked he would say that the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) and LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to invisible and not visible people in 2019. So they are not practical exceptions to the past ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. I have sent him e-mails of these posts and there is no contradiction from him.
I did not expect him to issue a denial. Since how could he say that BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 , GS 22 etc, refer to personally known and objectively seen people in 2019? How could he name someone saved outside the Church ? How can someone in Heaven also be seen on earth?
So no denial was expected from him.2
He may not want to affirm Feeneyite EEBS since it is not politically correct for the Left, for whom he works, but when he accepts Vatican Council II, with LG 8 etc not being literal cases in the present times, he does not contradict EENS according to the missionaries in the 16th century.He is affirming Feeneyite EENS and other magisterial documents interpreted rationally.
Michael Sean Winters affirms Vatican Council II and also the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) since the Council supports Feeneyite EENS when it is interpreted rationally.The Council is Feeneyite.He agrees with me.When he supports Fr. Leonard Feeney on EENS he is not in schism since the Council does the same when interpreted rationally.
So what if the French theologian Henri de Lubac and the American theologian Jesuit Fr. John Courtney Murray influenced Vatican Council II ? The Council when interpreted without the false premise is Traditional. It supports the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the past exclusivist ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.
So what if Karl Rahner 'would be called upon to help the preparatory commission working on the liturgy ' and the ,French Dominican Yves Congar Vatican Council II when interpreted without the invisible-visible, objective-subjective confusion is traditional. It supports the Athanasius Creed on outside the Church there is no salvation.
So what if Cardinal Joseph Frings of Cologne and Fr. Joseph Ratzinger were there at the Council ?.Michael Sean Winters knows now that we can interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism, instead of his Cushingism and the conclusion is different. The Council is not a rupture with EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.-Lionel Andrades
1
NOVEMBER 5, 2019
These are great days- when I say that Michael Sean Winters and Massimo Faggioli interpret Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) like the traditionalist Brother Andre Marie MICM- and there is no denial from them.
2
NOVEMBER 4, 2019
Michael Sean Winters affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) since if asked he would say that the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) and LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to invisible and not visible people in 2019. So they are not practical exceptions to the past ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. I have sent him e-mails of these posts and there is no contradiction from him.
3
NOVEMBER 3, 2019
Michael Sean Winters affirms Vatican Council II and also the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) since the Council supports Feeneyite EENS when it is interpreted rationally.The Council is Feeneyite.He agrees with me.When he supports Fr. Leonard Feeney on EENS he is not in schism since the Council does the same when interpreted rationally.
FALSE PREMISE DEFINED
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.
With the false premise there are 'objective exceptions' to EENS. There are visible exceptions to the Athanasius Creed, the Nicene Creed is changed, there is a new understanding of the Nicene 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.
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.
Posts
