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
Fake premise
______________________________________
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
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 ?
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.
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
Fake premise
______________________________________
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
Fake premise
______________________________________
Posts
