The error in Vatican Council II is subtle and background information is needed to detect it.It is all there.Superficially people can see the result of Vatican Council II,it’s a break with Tradition and sothey blame the Council Fathers for it in a general way.But most people are still not aware of the Specific Error, the False Premise.They don’t know how to switch the New Theology on or off. They don’t have a handle.
The Specific Error was a secret .The popes and the Left sustained it.Archbishop Lefebvre also went along with it
in ignorance or for political reasons.
After World War II and the creation of
the State of Israel, Pope Pius XII was told that Fr. Leonard Feeney could not
be tolerated in Boston.The Church had to change. The dogma extra ecclesiam
nulla salus(EENS) had to go.
So the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Arcbishop of Boston(LOHO), an internal document, was mysteriously made public after some three years and Pope Pius XII maintained his silence.The document had an error and Pope Pius XII looked the other way.
A Council was to be called to make the
new teaching official in the Church.So from 1960-1965 a group of ecclesiastics,
priests and theologians with the support of the Zionists, decided to officially
eliminate the dogma EENS in the Catholic Church.
It was clumsy but it seemed the only way
they could do it at that time was by confusing invisible and unknown cases of the
baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) as being physically
visible and personally known examples of salvation, outside the Church, in those times.So they
become exceptions to the traditional EENS, which over the centuries had no
practical exceptions. There can be no practical exceptions since none exist for humans in general. It
is something that can be known only to God.
They then began the compromise with doctrine and did not restrict the ‘exceptions’ for EENS, to only BOD and I.I as in LOHO. In Vatican Council II the exceptions list is extended to UR 3, LG 8, NA 2, GS 22, AG 11( seeds of the Word) etc- all referring to salvation outside the Church without the baptism of water and Catholic faith.
The confusion over what is invisible and
visible, present in LOHO, is there in many texts in Vatican Council II. It is
like a theme of error.
This is the false premise. Since there
are no objective cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc, in 1965, 1949 or 2021 and we have a Council projecting unknown cases in real life as being objective exceptions to the past ecclesiocenrism ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
This fake premise, which can be avoided
today, is the Specific Error in Vatican Council II brought in by the Council
Fathers and approved by Pope Paul VI.They were using the 1) red right hand side
irrational column, 2) the irrational premise, inference and non traditional
conclusion and 3) the red was an exception to the blue.All public mistakes.
So this error produced a New Theology
which said outside the Church there is no salvation and this was not
Magisterial, it was not the work of the Holy Spirit.
But just as the change from Tradition to
liberalism, perhaps for political left reasons,was done with a simple act- the
use of a false premise, we can go back to Tradition also with a simple act i.e
accept the Council and re-interpret it with a rational premise.
When the liberals ( and traditionalists)
cite Vatican Council II tell them that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22
etc refer to hypothetical cases like the
BOD and I.I in the LOHO.So they cannot be practical exceptions for the dogma
EENS, the Syllabus of Errors and the Athanasius Creed( all need Catholic faith
for salvation).
Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and
baptism for salvation and LG 8, LG 14 ,LG 16, UR 3 etc are not exceptions.There is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the past excluisivist
ecclesiology of the Church. Practically there are no objective exceptions to
the teaching on outside the Church there is no salvation.The Council is ecclesiocentric, traditional and dogmatic and not only pastoral.Pope Paul VI made a mistake.He interpreted hypothetical cases and invisible cases in Vatican Council II as being exceptions to EENS and Tradition. He also overlooked the same mistake in the LOHO.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Fr. Luis Ladaria sj and Pope John Paul II over looked the same mistake in two papers of the International Theological Commission. They are Christianity and the World Religions and the Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptised. 1
Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus were written with this mix up between what is invisible and visible and so these Church documents are not ecclesiocentric.They are not dogmatic.They are a rupture with the dogma EENS.
Pope Francis also interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise otherwise he would have to affirm EENS like Mel Gibson and Fr. Leonard Feeney.
It's important to note that the False Premise was not only used by Karl Rahner, Joseph Ratzinger, Yves Congar, John Courtney Murray and Richard Cushing but also Alfredo Ottaviani and Marcel Lefebvre.2 In present times it has been used by Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Archbishop Augustine Noia op and Bishop Bernard Fellay.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall made a break with the error recently.They said that there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire(LG 14).There are no explicit cases of St. Thomas Aquinas' implicit baptism of desire.They put aside the New Theology and chose the Rational Premise and the Blue Right Hand Side Rational Column.-Lionel Andrades
1
SEPTEMBER 26, 2021
The theological paper Christianity and the World Religions of the International Theological Commission was approved by Pope Benedict and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj in 1997 during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II : it interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise to create a false rupture with Catholic Tradition
SEPTEMBER 26, 2021
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise, the right hand side column and he was followed in the error by Michael Davies, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Chris Ferrara,, Roberto dei Matteo, Fr. Nicholas Gruner. The SSPX bishops are still interpreting Magisterial documents with the false premise
SEPTEMBER 24, 2021
Pope Paul VI brought ‘the smoke of Satan’ into the Church when he interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally instead of rationally. He used the false premise instead of the rational option.Pope Francis and Pope Benedict must announce that Pope Paul VI made an objective error.They must correct the mistake
SEPTEMBER 23, 2021
Pope Francis and Pope Benedict could correct the error in Wikipedia and Internet resources and the German theological and catechetical publications
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment