In the past Europe would go out to the missions. Now the people of the missions have come to Europe. Tell them outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation(AG 7) and in Heaven there are only Catholics (AG 7, VC II) and that most people go to Hell without Catholic faith and the baptism of water(AG 7) and that LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2 , GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are not known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, they being only hypothetical cases. So consider becoming a member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell and to go to Heaven. -Lionel Andrades
Saturday, October 3, 2020
In the past Europe would go out to the missions. Now the people of the missions have come to Europe. Tell them outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation(AG 7) and in Heaven there are only Catholics (AG 7, VC II) and that most people go to Hell without Catholic faith and the baptism of water(AG 7) and that LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2 , GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are not known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, they being only hypothetical cases. So consider becoming a member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell and to go to Heaven
When I say outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation and in Heaven there are only Catholics this is the Catholic teaching of the Catholic Church in Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents interpreted rationally.This is not just a personal view. Usually people are intolerant with this Catholic teaching. I am tolerant with the religious views of others. I expect them to be tolerant of mine too
When I say outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation and in Heaven there are only Catholics this is the Catholic teaching of the Catholic Church in Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents interpreted rationally.This is not just a personal view.
Usually people are intolerant with this Catholic teaching. I am tolerant with the religious views of others. I expect them to be tolerant of mine too. -Lionel Andrades
Vocations to the religious life in Australia have to interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise to be politically correct with the Left, which is persecuting the Catholic Church there
Vocations to the religious life in Australia have to interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise to be politically correct with the Left, which is persecuting the Catholic Church there. -Lionel Andrades
___________________________________________
The Dignitatis Humanae Institute,Italy of Benjamin Harnwell and Steve Bannon is not a Catholic institution. Yet they have a list of Catholic progressivist cardinals like Sarah, Arinze and Brandmuller among others, who accept Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise. This creates the hermeneutic of rupture with 16th century EENS.
The Dignitatis Humanae Institute,Italy of Benjamin Harnwell and Steve Bannon is not a Catholic institution. Yet they have a list of Catholic progressivist cardinals like Sarah, Arinze and Brandmuller among others, who accept Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise. This creates the hermeneutic of rupture with 16th century EENS.
They offer Holy Mass in Latin, whenever they can and interpret Vatican Council II like the liberals.It must be noted that it is not the Novus Ordo Mass which makes someone a progressivist and it is not the Latin Mass which makes a Catholic a traditionalist. Instead it is the false premise used in the interpretation of Magisterial documents.
-Lionel Andrades
Hell is real.Most people go there ( Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II) and there is no shortage of space
Hell is real.Most people go there ( Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II) and there is no shortage of space.-Lionel Andrades
Rad trad Bishop Robert Barron who interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise to avoid affirming Feeneyite EENS and the rest of Tradition, has accepted the Templeton grant, to show there is a convergence of science and faith( in all religions) with the absence of any scientific proof of Hell - and that most people go there after death
Rad trad Bishop Robert Barron who interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise to avoid affirming Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the rest of Tradition, has accepted the Templeton Foundation grant, to show there is a convergence of science and faith( in all religions) with the absence of any scientific proof of Hell - and that most people go there after death.-Lionel Andrades
OCTOBER 2, 2020
The two popes are interpreting Vatican Council II with a false premise, as approved by the Left, and without any acknowledgement of the error, a new encyclical is to be announced tomorrow on the feast of St. Francis of Assisi.
The two popes are interpreting Vatican Council II with a false premise, as approved by the Left, and without any acknowledgement of the error, a new encyclical is to be announced tomorrow on the feast of St. Francis of Assisi.
About all the books and articles on Vatican Council II confuse Unitatis Redintigratio(UR) 3 as an exception to an ecumenism of return, when there is nothing in the whole of UR to contradict the traditional doctrines on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
Similarly the books and articles on Ecclesiology written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and the other cardinals, project LG 8, LG 15, GS 22 etc as exceptions to 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). Without the false premise, without confusing what is invisible as being visible and hypothetical as objective, there is nothing in the whole of Lumen Gentium to contradict Feeneyite EENS.
To project hypothetical cases in UR, NA, LG as being exceptions to traditionl Mission doctrines, is an objective error.
I intepret Vatican Council II as a continuity with the strict interpretation of EENS, that of the Middle Ages, and the Vatican, Catholic apologists and the Latin Mass traditionalists do not acknowledge it. Since for political reasons, which protect their career and income, they do not want to go back to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. They need and want the rupture with Tradition.
The Latin Mass today is not the same as that of the past .This is not the Mass of the centuries, but that of the Catholic Church since the late 1940's
I seem to be in a head on collision with Boniface's illusions about the Latin Mass expressed on his blog Unam Sanctam Catholicam.This happens when I keep repeating that the Latin Mass of today is not the Traditional Latin Mass of the 16th century missionaries , at least, not in theology.
The rubrics are the same as the past but the theology is the same as that of the Novus Ordo Mass and Mass in other rites.
This has come about since the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) has changed Catholic theology with the use of a false premise. The Holy Mass in all Rites is offered with the New Theology. So with the false premise there is a New Ecclesiology, a New Ecumenism, New Evangelisation etc, based on a common theological error.
There are no traditional salvation doctrines proclaimed at Mass in the homily.So Pope Francis and Pope Benedict support the Latin Mass of today.It's theology is the same as the Novus Ordo Mass or that of the Byzantine Greek Mass offered in Rome at St. Sofia's church, by Ukrainian Catholics.
The Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO) error is repeated in Vatican Council II and this is accepted by traditionalists and liberals.
So the SSPX applies the New Theology to Vatican Council II and rejects the Council while Cardinal Kasper does the same, but accepts the Council.So Cardinal Kasper is content with a break with Tradition while the traditionalists are not. Both groups could avoid the false premise and then Vatican Council II would not be a rupture with Tradition. The ecclesiology of the Latin Mass would be the same as the Traditional Latin Mass.
Both groups blame the Council when the fault lies with the common false premise which confuses what is invisible as being visible and then makes the expected false inference.
In the Middle Ages the Jesuits offered Holy Mass affirming exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. There were no exceptions to the dogma EENS.But in 2016 Pope Benedict said that EENS is more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century, for him, there was a development with Vatican Council II.He meant Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise.
Similarly EENS is no more the same for the SSPX. There was a development with Vatican Council II. Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise.
Also EENS is no more the same for the SSPX. There was a development with LOHO.Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre interpreted EENS with exceptions.
At the traditional Greek Mass for Catholics in the First Centry there was EENS with no exceptions.In the Middle Ages there was EENS with no exceptions since it is common sense that hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) could not be objective exceptions to EENS.
So for the Tridentine Rite Mass in the Middle Ages it was EENS with no exceptions.
So the Latin Mass today is not the same as that of the past .This is not the Mass of the centuries, but that of the Catholic Church since the late 1940's.-Lionel Andrades
September 20, 2020
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/
Dave Armstrong's debates with Karl Keating and Christopher Ferrara were based upon the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, EENS, the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, Creeds and Catechisms. They were all interpreted with the false premise
Dave Armstrong has written so many articles on Vatican Council II with reference to other apologetics and he has always interpreted the Council by wrongly confusing what is implicit as being explicit, invisible as being visible.Then with this false premise his conclusion has to be non traditional, a rupture with exclusivist salvation in the Catholic Church. Then he considers this the norm.
When I interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise there is no rupture with exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.So he lets the issue remain unanswered. He removes links and does not comment on his website.He does not affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and is a Cushingite.
He would prefer to remain with his illusion. It is politically correct with the Left.
He has responded to Timothy Flanders on the blog The Meaning of Being Catholic but will not respond to any of my comments on that blog thread.
Since if he does respond to my comments he would have to admit that he has been irrational all these years.The Council is not a rupture with the Athanasius Creed, which says all need to be Catholic for salvation.But he is a Cushingite and not a Feeneyite.
For me there is nothing in Unitatis Redintigratio(UR), the Decree on Ecumenism, Vatican Council II, to contradict an ecumenism of return.Dave Armstrong cannot handle this.All his life he has interpreted UR 3 etc as being exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
For me there is nothing in Lumen Gentium, Vaticam Council II, to contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.This too is difficult for him.Since LG 8, LG 16 etc have been exceptions to 16th century EENS.He accepts this irrationality in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO).
At this time in his life, at his age, all this must be a big challenge.It could be asking too much of him.
It would be peaceful to remain with the irrationality -after all the whole Church is following the same error.Why create problems for a conforming apologist ?
I am not troubled by the old rules, the errors of the last 55 years.Dave Armstrong's debates with Karl Keating and Christopher Ferrara were based upon the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, EENS, the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, Creeds and Catechisms. They were all interpreted with the false premise.-Lionel Andrades
OCTOBER 1, 2020
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
