Ralph Martin assumes that the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance are exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) when they are not : his premise is false. He uses the red passages
Ralph Martin assumes that the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance are exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), when they are not. This was an objective mistake of Pope Pius XII and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, with reference to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Similarly he makes the same error with Vatican Council II. Lumen Gentium 16( invincible ignorance/good conscience),does not contradict the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).They are always hypothetical cases and never were practical exceptions to 16th century EENS.
But for Ralph Martin they are practical exceptions. He uses the red passages.He comes to this issue with a false premise.
So he cannot out right say that Vatican Council II supports the strict interpretation of EENS with 1) Ad Gentes 7 -all need faith and baptism for salvation and we do not know of any objective case of a non Catholic saved outside the Catholic Church and 2) hypothetical and theoretical cases mentioned in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are not practical exceptions to EENS, the Athanasius Creed ( outside the Church no salvation), the Syllabus of Errors ( ecumenism of return ,Protestants need to enter Catholic Church for salvation), Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 2Q, 27Q)and the centuries-old ecclesiocentrism.
There is nothing in the entire text of Lumen Gentium, LG 16 included, (which he quotes), which is a practical exception to EENS in 1949-2021.Nothing in the entire text!
This is interpreting Vatican Council II with the blue passages. It is seeing LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc as as being invisible cases only. They are not physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Church.
What is implicit is not confused as being explicit. This was the mistake the Holy Office made in 1949.The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith repeated in 1965.
Like the CDF Ralph Martin interprets Vatican Council II with the common red passages. -Lionel Andrades
BAPTISM OF DESIRE, BAPTISM OF BLOOD AND INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
Fake premise
The Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance refer to physically visible cases in 1949-2021.
Fake inference
They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.They are examples of known non Catholics saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.
Fake conclusion
So they contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extraecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The Athanasius Creed(outside the Church there is no salvation) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return) were made obsolete.
Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office(CDF) made an objective mistake.
BAPTISM OF DESIRE, BAPTISM OF BLOOD AND INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
Rational Premise
The Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance refer to physically invisible cases in 1949-2021
They are only hypothetical and theoretical. They exist only in our mind and are not solid bodies at Newton's level of time, space and matter.
Rational Inference
They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.They are not examples of known non Catholics saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.
Rational Conclusion
They do not contradict EENS as it was interpreted by the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.They donot contradict the strict interpretation of EENS of St. Thomas Aquinas( saved in invincible ignorance is invisible), St. Augustine and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.
The Letter of the Holy Office(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) 1949 made an objective mistake.
__________
VATICAN COUNCIL II
Fake premise
Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Lumen Gentium 14(Baptism of Desire), Lumen Gentium 16 (Invincible ignorance) etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.
Fake inference
They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
Fake conclusion
Vatican Council II contradicts the strict interpretation of the dogma extraecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The Athanasius Creed(outside the Church there is no salvation) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return) were made obsolete.
Pope Paul VI and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, made an objective error.
VATICAN COUNCIL II
Rational Premise
Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Lumen Gentium 14 and Lumen Gentium 16 in Vatican Council II refer to physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.They are only hypothetical and theoretical. They exist only in our mind and are not solid bodies at Newton's level of time, space and matter.
Rational Inference
They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.
Rational Conclusion
Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS as it was interpreted by the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.It does not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS of St. Thomas Aquinas( saved in invincible ignorance is invisible), St. Augustine and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.
The Letter of the Holy Office(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) 1949 made an objective mistake.-L.A
______________________________________
Lionel Andrades
Catholic lay man in Rome,
Writer on the discovery of the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is interpreted with the false premise and the other without it. One is Magisterial and the other, the common one, is non Magisterial.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms.There can be two interpretations.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, non traditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional ?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment