Saturday, May 8, 2021

The interpretation of Vatican Council II by Pope Francis, the Catechetical Centers and Bishops Conferences is non Magisterial since they use a false premise, however Vatican Council II in itself would be non Magisterial since the Council Fathers made the same mistake



The interpretation of  Vatican Council II by Pope Francis, the Catechetical Centers and Bishops Conferences is non Magisterial since they use a false premise, however Vatican Council II in itself would be non Magisterial since the Council Fathers made the same mistake.
However inspite of the error the Council-text can be interpreted  withot the fake premise and instead in harmony with with Tradition( EENS etc) and so Vatican Council II would be Magisterial.


If we interpret the 'red passages' as exceptions to the blue passages then Vatican Council II is not Magisterial. It is break with Tradition.
But if we interpret 'the red passages' as being only hypothetical and so not practial exceptons to the blue ones, then Vatican Council II emerges traditional and in harmony with the past Magisterium. -Lionel Andrades

Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
 Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it." Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him...- Ad Gentes 7. Vatican Council II

 

Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II

14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart."(12*) All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.- Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II


 Unitatis Redintigratio (Decree on Ecumenism), Vatican Council II 
It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.-Unitatis Redintigratio (Decree on Ecumenism), Vatican Council II

 Catechism of the Catholic Church 846-848 
 "Outside the Church there is no salvation"  846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:  
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: 
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."
-Catechism of the Catholic Church 846-848 

 DOMINUS IESUS 


IV. UNICITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH

16.  The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5).  Therefore, the fullness of Christ's salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27),47 which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18).48 And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single “whole Christ”.49 This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).50
Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”.51 Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church's integrity — will never be lacking.52
The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53— between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54  With the expressionsubsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”
-Dominus Iesus 16. 

________________________________


LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 DURING THE PONTIFICATE OF POPE PIUS XII


( This letter was  an inter office correspondence between cardinals. However the liberals placed it in the Denzinger and it has been referenced in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It contains an objective error when it assumes invisible and unknown cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible and known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Upon this Letter is based the New Theology.)
 We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those  things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemnjudgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (, n. 1792).
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there
 is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church...
Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, 
which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth...

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless  refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should  enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects,necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic
 necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).
  Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit,as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

___________________



FEBRUARY 9, 2019

The red is not an exception to the blue' : new extraordinary understanding of Vatican Council II
HTTPS://EUCHARISTANDMISSION.BLOGSPOT.COM/2019/02/THE-RED-IS-NOT-EXCEPTION-TO-BLUE-NEW.HTML

JANUARY 28, 2019

In Magisterial documents the red is not an exception to the blue, the red does not contradict the blue : with the blue there is a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition (16th- century extra ecclesium nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, past exclusivist ecclesiology etc) 

 https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/01/in-magisterial-documents-red-is-not.html

 

FEBRUARY 4, 2019

Nei documenti magistrali il rosso non è un'eccezione al blu, il rosso non contraddice il blu: con il blu c'è un'ermeneutica di continuità con la Tradizione (extra ecclesium nulla salus del 16 ° secolo , Sillabo degli Errori di Pio IX, ecumenismo del ritorno, esclusivista ecclesiologia ecc. ) 

 https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/02/nei-documenti-magistrali-il-rosso-non-e.html


___________________________________

MAY 6, 2021

Pope Francis's interpretation of Vatican Council II is leftist. He uses a false premise and Catholics are not obliged to follow the irrationality. It is not Magisterial. Pope Francis and Pope Benedict have to choose the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II for it to be Magisterial

 Pope Francis's interpretation of Vatican Council II is leftist. He uses a false premise and Catholics are not obliged to follow the irrationality. It is not Magisterial. Pope Francis and Pope Benedict have to choose the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II for it to be Magisterial.

Similarly his interpretation and acceptance of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) cannot be Magisterial since the LOHO assumes unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are known and objective exceptions to the traditional strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which both the present popes reject.-Lionel Andrades




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 do 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.
__________


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 extra ecclesiam 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

______________________________________





 MAY 4, 2021

Ralph Martin and Scott Hahn's New Evangelisation is based upon Pope Francis' non Magisterial interpretation of Vatican Council II. They have to use a false premise so that they do not have to say that everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church with Catholic faith and the baptism of water(AG 7) to avoid the fires of Hell( for salvation).

 Ralph Martin and Scott Hahn's New Evangelisation is based upon Pope Francis' non Magisterial interpretation of Vatican Council II. They have to use  a false premise  so that they do not have to say that everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church with Catholic faith and the baptism of water(AG 7) to avoid the fires of Hell( for salvation).

If they do not use the red passages and instead interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with the blue passages they return to the Old Evangelisation.They return to traditional Mission, as it was known to the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.-Lionel Andrades


 MAY 3, 2021

Bishop Robert Barron cites Lumen Gentium 16 which he interprets with the false premise, the red passages.Then he projects Vatican Council II(LG 16) as a rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church : he continues to use the fake premise which won him the Templeton Foundation grant

How to Get to Heaven — Bishop Barron’s Sunday Sermon


At 6:28 on the video Bishop Robert Barron cites Lumen Gentium 16 which he interprets with the false premise, the red passages.Then he projects Vatican Council II(LG 16) as a rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. So there is no more exclusive salvation in the only the Catholic Church for him.So to get to Heaven one does not have to be a Catholic for him.  He refuses to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise, the blue passages.

If he did not choose the irrational option he could not have received the 1.7 grant from the Templeton Foundation.

It was by creating a rupture between faith and reason, with the false premise, that he was able to collect that money.


FR.MARK GORING AND RALPH MARTIN USE THE IRRATIONAL PREMISE TOO

In their review and criticism of this talk Fr. Mark Goring and Ralph Martin  have overlooked this point. Lumen Gentium 8, 14, 16 etc can be interpreted with the red or blue passages and the conclusion would be different.

All three of them use the irrational premise in the interpretation of Lumen Gentium and so their conclusion is non traditional. 

Fr.Mark Goring cites Scripture too but rejects the conclusion of Lumen Gentium 16 interpreted with the false premise. Ralph Martin also does not seem aware that LG 16 can be interpreted as being only hypothetical. So LG 16 could not be relevant to EENS or an exception to the old 'imperialism'.


THERE IS NOTHING IN NOSTRA AETATE, AD GENTES OR LUMEN GENTIUM TO CONTRADICT EENS

At 7:36 on the video Bishop Barron cites Nostra Aetate 2 and  there being rays of light; rays of that  one Truth found also in other religions.Again his premise is that there are known non Catholics saved outside the Church, 'with the ray of that Truth which enligtens all men'.So for him, NA 2  contradicts the past exclusive ecclesiology. He uses the same false premise as the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in the case of Fr. Leonard Feeney.

He is irrational like that Letter(1949).Nostra Aetate 2,or Gaudium et Specs 22,  like LG 16, refers to a hypothetical and speculative case.Always. It is something we can hope for with good will.Theoretically only. If the Council Fathers assumed that it referred to a practical exception to EENS this was an objective error.


WE HAVE TWO INTEPRETATIONS OF VATICAN COUNCIL II ONE HAS AN ERROR.

Here we have Bishop Robert Barron drawing upon the New Theology of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to suggest that not every one needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. This is the new doctrine which the popes from Pius XII over looked.

Now we have two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one with the error and the other without it.

For Bishop Barron the fullness of salvation does not necessarily mean being saved through Jesus in the Catholic Church only (AG 7). He is Christocentric. He excludes  St. Peter's implicit reference to the  Church of that time, the Catholic Church.St. Peter was calling for a baptism of water in a particular Church. It was not independent of the Church.At that time there were no Christian churches with their different doctrines.There was no sola scriptura.

Bishop Barron refers to the Christian church and not the Catholic Church - but there was only one true Church at that time(UR 3).It was the Catholic Church.Catholics were the new people of God( NA 4). All needed faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7)in the Catholic Church.


WHERE IS THE CASE OF SOMEONE SAVED IN A PARTICIPATED WAY OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ?

At 8:36 on the video he asks can someone be saved in a participated way in these other traditions?  Even if someone was saved as such we would not know.So this theoretical case would not be an exception to the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24Q, 27Q) and the Athanasius Creed.So why mention it? So what if someone is saved as such in other religions ? Are there any such known people in 2021?

WHERE IS THE PRACTICAL CASE OF SOMEONE SAVED OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WITH A GOOD CONSCIENCE?

At 9:30 on the video he refers to following the voice of Christ in one's conscience,as in the case of a non believer, again drawing upon LG 16. It is the same error. In principle he assumes hypothetical cases are objective and explicit in the present times(1965-2021). Who among us knows of someone who will be saved outside the Church with a good conscience ? Where are the practical cases ? There are none.So why mention them? Again he chooses to confuse what is implicit as being explict, unknown as known, hypothetical as objective and then project imaginary exceptions to the past exclesiocentrism which was Magisterial and which he rejects.He cannot interpet Vatican Council II without this false premise.


BISHOP BARRON HAS TO USE THE FAKE PREMISE TO SUPPORT HIS LIBERALISM

All this is deception and a rupture between faith and reason. Bishop Robert Barron received the collected the Templeton Foundation grant to address the harmony between faith and science. How do you address it, with duplicity? He has to interpret the Council with a fake premise, inference and conclusion ? This is the Magisterium for Bishop Barron ? In this way Vatican Council II is Magisterial for him ?

PEKING MAN THEOLOGY

Bishop Barron's interpretation of Vatican Council II reminds me of the fossils, Peking Man which Teilhard de Chardin accepted as genuine and scientific. It was a fake. Chardin based his bad theology upon this un-scientific finding to support evolution and reincarnation.

The Holy Spirit guided the Church over the centuries and taught exclusive salvation.Bishop Barron rejects this Magisterium, which for him is 'agressive exclusivism'.The saints and martyrs affirmed exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church without being violent.

IF BISHOP BARRON INTERPRETED VATICAN COUNCIL II RATIONALLY HE WOULD BE AN EXTREMIST FOR THE LEFT

Instead we see an intolerance of our Catholic beliefs.Bishop Barron who would criticize the 'extremists' (but does use that word any more)knows that if he interpreted Vatican Council II rationally, he would be an extremist.

So now with deceptive theology he he presents Jesus without the necessity of being a member of the Catholic Church.He cites Vatican Council II  interpreted with the fake premise and calls this our 'Christian identity'.-Lionel Andrades



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 do 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.
__________


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 extra ecclesiam 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

______________________________________

 MAY 3, 2021

Ralph Martin knows that if he interprets Vatican Council II and EENS rationally like me,he is no more on the Vatican's Council for the New Evangelization and will be removed from the faculty in Detroit : the New Evangelisation depends upon the error in the LOHO

 

In the video above Ralph Martin briefly mentions the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO)relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney.LOHO cannot be Magisterial since it has made an objective mistake even though it is referenced in Vatican Council II (LG 16).Invisible cases of being saved in invincible ignorance, LOHO assumes were visible exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). In other words, cases of being saved in invincible ignorance were physically visible for them to be practical exceptions to EENS.Invisible cases cannot be exceptions.But where are these cases in 1949-2021.We don't know any one. Since if someone was saved outside the Church it would only be known to God. The norm for salvation is faith and the baptism of water(AG 7), it is extra ecclesiam nulla salus( John 3:5, MArk 16:16 etc).

LOHO also assumes that unknown cases of being saved with the baptism of desire are practical exceptions to EENS and so LOHO criticizes Fr.Leonard Feeney. He did not accept this irrationality which produced a non traditional and heretical conclusion.

How can the Holy Spirit make this error? How can this Magisterial ? This is human error.

This was also the irrational reasoning of some of the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II(1965) and so we have LG 16.

Now there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II and EENS.In one interpretation LG 16 is an exception to EENS and in the other it is not and exception to EENS.

Ralph Martin, Fr. Mark Goring and Bishop Robert Barron interpret LG 16 as an exception to traditional EENS.I do not do so.So there is a Vatican Council II which has exceptions for EENS and a Vatican Council II, in which LG 8, LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, GS 22, NA 2 etc are not practical exceptions for EENS.There is a Vatican Council II with no exceptions for EENS.

They interpret BOD and I.I as exceptions to EENS and I do not do so.For me BOD and I.I refer to invisible and theoretical cases. So they cannot be practical exceptions to EENS.So we have today an EENS with exceptions and an EENS without exceptions.

We also have two interpretations of the Creeds and Catechisms with Ralph Martin rejecting the Athanasius Creed( outside the Church no salvation) and I accepting it with there being no exceptions.

Ralph Martin is in harmony with Pope Francis and Pope Benedict but in a rupture with the past Feeneyite Magisterium, which did not interpret EENS with exceptions.

I am in harmony with the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church; the past popes and saints on EENS, but in a rupture with the present two Cushingite popes, for whom Vatican Council II is a rupture with Feeneyite EENS.

Ralph Martin knows  that if he interprets Vatican Council II and EENS rationally like me,he is no more on the Vatican's Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization and will be removed from the faculty of the Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit.His  evangelisation of course would have to be Feeneyite and ecclesiocentric if he interprets EENS and Vatican Council II with no exceptions.This would be the old evangelisation and not the New Evangelisation.It depends upon the error in the LOHO. -Lionel Andrades



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 do 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.
__________


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 extra ecclesiam 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

______________________________________

MAY 2, 2021

Fr.Mark Goring and Bishop Robert Barron interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise : the bishop accepts the liberal conclusion and the priest rejects it

 

Fr.Mark Goring is Scriptural on salvation but allows Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise, the red passages, to contradict Scripture - and he does not like it. He does not like in Bishop Barron.
Bishop Barron would also be Scriptural but interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise, the red passages, and then assumes hypothetical cases are objective examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church. So Lumen Gentium 16 would contradict the Great Commission.There would be alleged practical exceptions, as if it is possible. Similarly  LG 16 would project exceptions for John 3:5 and Mark 16:16,
So Bishop Barron is going ahead and quoting LG 16 as an exception to exclusive ecclesiocentrism in the Catholic Church and Fr. Mark Goring and the present two popes are doing the same. They are using the New Theology which is based upon the red passages, the confusing of what is invisible as being visible.
Fr. Mark Goring has to interpret Vatican Council II with the blue passages and then there is no rupture with his Scriptural quotations. He could then correct Bishop Robert Barron when he cites Vatican Council II, interpreted irrationally, to create a new doctrine in the Catholic Church. -Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/frgoring-and-bishop-barron-interpret.html

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 ?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission
Tel:- 


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)