Tuesday, September 29, 2020
U.S Catholic Supreme Court judges use a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and so project themselves as progressivist and not traditional
The Judges of the Supreme Court in the USA interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise as does Bishop Robert Barron and this is unethical. Since without the false premise the Left would consider them traditionalists etc. They would not be progressive Catholics who are welcome in U.S. politics.
Bishop Barron is asked :"Does that mean that I am damned ?.The Catholic judges on the Supreme Court in the USA would also answer like him, " No, no that is not Catholic teaching".(0.29 video).Since for them LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to known non Catholics saved outside the Church.People who are invisible and known only to God are assumed to be visible. The unknown is known.With this false premise Vatican Council II is projected as a rupture with Feeneyite EENS( extra ecclesiam nulla salus).
There is a rupture with the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic faith for salvation.
The Protestant in the video is damned since Catholic faith and baptism is the ordinary means of salvation(Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II). Invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16,Vatican Council II) is not the norm.
Also when Vatican Council II mentions LG 16 it is a reference to a hypothetical case only in the present times (1965-2020). So it is not an objective exception to the norm ( Ad Gentes 7, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors etc. )
But LG 16 is an exception to the traditional norm for Barron.In his mind it refers to a known person, a visible person saved outside the Church.It would be the same for the Catholic judges on the Supreme Court and also for Joe Biden the U.S Presidential candidate.
If there was no visible and known person saved outside the Church they would be back to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. They would be in harmony with the Jesuit missionaries of the 16th century.
With a false premise and inference they project exceptions to exclusive salvation in the Church and this is acceptable for the Left.They are in politics and it is politically correct.
Bishop Barron's premise is wrong( invisible is visible) and inference is wrong( exclusive salvation is contradicted) and his conclusion is non traditional (outside the Church there is salvation and EENS etc are obsolete).So for him the Protestant is not going to Hell.This would be appreciated by the Establishment in the USA.
Even if a non Catholic or non Christian can be saved(in Barron's mind) he must know that he is referring to a hypothetical case. This invisible case must not be projected as an exception to the norm.Someone who is not there must not be made an exception to Catholic Tradition.
(Time 1.07) He refers to Lumen Gentium 16 and says that this is Catholic teaching.He is inspired to say that the person before him will not be damned.He uses a false premise and inference to interpret LG 16 and calls it Catholic teaching.It would be the same for the U.S judges.
USCCB BISHOPS TOO
(Time 1:16) He refers to Jesus as the fullness of salvation and says if every one is saved he is saved through Christ.Bishop Barron does not mention the necessity of membership in the Church for salvation. He cannot. He does not feel obliged.Since for him LG 16 is an exception to traditional exclusive salvation.He has found an exception to throw out Tradition. The traditional interpretation of the Creeds and Catechisms are put aside. He has used the false premise like the liberals and Lefebvrists.This is a common error of the USCCB bishops too. They overlook it in the judges of the U.S Supreme Court who now are not officially Catholic traditionalists.
(1.22) He says there are participations in the grace of Christ in non Christian religions as if he knows of someone who will be saved outside the Church in these religions.He does not !Yet for him there are exceptions to the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q and 27Q).The Catholic judges too are in a schism with Pope Pius X.They have created division and this is good for their political image.
What is hypothetical and theoretical has become real and known for all of them.
(1:30) Even a non believer with good will(GS 22), Barron presumes is a non hypothetical case.This would be deception if the Amy Barrett said the same after being informed.Presently the error is innocent.
Now for them and Bishop Barron there are known non Catholics saved outside the Church without faith and baptism, as if we could meet them or know their name.
(2:00) He concludes that one can be saved in these other religions as 'a participation in the grace of Christ' and this is Catholic teaching.
This is the New Theology.With a false premise it is inferred that there are exceptions to the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.So the New Theology says outside the Catholic Church there is salvation, there is known salvation.
First Bishop Barron supposes that there is known salvation outside the Church and then he concludes that there are known non Catholics saved outside the Church in other religions.This is the new norm for him.
(2:13) He does not say that Protestants cannot receive the Eucharist since they are outside the Church and outside the Church there is no salvation(AG 7 etc).He reads Vatican Council II with the false premise and this is common also for the judges.
He uses the false premise to intepret Vatican Council II and so does not have to affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
Now what if Bishop Robert Barron and the U.S Supreme Court judges did not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II ? They would then be affirming exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.They would have to say that the Protestant interviewer, , Cameron Bertuzzi was on the way to Hell if he did not convert into the Catholic Church with faith and the baptism of water.Bishop Barron and the judges would be called radical traditionalists just as Barron pejoratively labels conservative Catholics.-Lionel Andrades
SEPTEMBER 29, 2020
With Amy Barrettt the U.S Supreme Court will have six Catholic judges who all interpret Vatican Council II and other Catholic Magisterial documents with a false premise and so project an artificial rupture with Catholic Tradition including the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as does Bishop Robert Barron in this video
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/09/blog-post_29.html
SEPTEMBER 28, 2020
Pope Francis and Pope Benedict would be traditionalists, rigid and fundamentalists, but they avoid these labels, when they interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and inference, like Bishop Barron in this video.
SEPTEMBER 27, 2020
A Protestant Asks Bishop Barron if He should become Catholic and he interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise and avoids the rad trad label
With Amy Barrettt the U.S Supreme Court will have six Catholic judges who all interpret Vatican Council II and other Catholic Magisterial documents with a false premise and so project an artificial rupture with Catholic Tradition including the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as does Bishop Robert Barron in this video
"Does that mean that I am damned ? No, no that is not Catholic teaching", remarks Bishop Robert Barron.(0.29 time on video)
Yes it means he is damned since faith and baptism is the ordinary means of salvation. Invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) is not the norm.
Also when Vatican Council II mentions LG 16 it is a reference to a hypothetical case only in the present times (1965-2020). So it is not an objective exception to the norm ( Ad Gentes 7, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors etc. )
But LG 16 is an exception to the traditional norm for Barron and in his mind it refers to a known person, a visible person saved outside the Church. So it is an exception to exclusive salvation in the Church. His premise is wrong( invisible is visible) and inference is wrong( exclusive salvation is contradicted) and his conclusion is non traditional (outside the Church there is salvation and EENS etc are obsolete).So for him the Protestant is not going to Hell.
Even if a non Catholic or non Christian can be saved he is referring to a hypothetical case. This invisible case must not be projected as an exception to the norm.
(Time 1.07) He refers to Lumen Gentium 16 and says that this is Catholic teaching which inspires him to say that the person before him will not be damned.
(time 1:16) He refers to Jesus as the fullness of salvation and if every one is saved he is saved through Christ and Bishop Barron does not mention the necessity of the Church for salvation. Since LG 16 is an exception to exclusive salvation for him. He has used the false premise like the liberals and Lefebvrists.
(1.22) He says there are participations in the grace of Christ in non Christian religions as if he knows of someone who will be saved outside the Church in these religions. What is hypothetical and theoretical has become real and known for him.
(1:30) Even a non believer of good will(GS 22), he says, he projects as a non hypothetical case. For him it is a known non Catholic saved outside the Church without faith and baptism, as if he could meet them or know their name.It is as if he knows of an atheist who will go to Heaven.
(2:00) He concludes that one can be saved in these other religions as 'a participation in the grace of Christ' and thid is Catholic teaching.
This is the New Theology.
First Bishop Barron supposes that there is known salvation outside the Church and then he concludes that there are known non Catholics saved outside the Church in other religions and this is the new norm for him.
(2:13) He does not say that Protestants cannot receive the Eucharist since they are outside the Church and outside the Church there is no salvation(AG 7 etc).
He uses the false premise to intepret Vatican Council II and so does not have to affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
Now what if Bishop Robert Barron did not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II ? He would then be affirming exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and would have to say that the Protestant before him would be oriented to Hell unless he did not convert into the Catholic Church with faith and the baptism of water. He would be called a radical traditionalist.
The false premise in the interpretation of th Council saves him from this label which he uses against conservative Catholics. -Lionel Andrades
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
