Sunday, September 26, 2021

Repost : MULLER, LADARIA, DI NOI, POZZO, KASPAR AND KOCH WANT THE SSPX TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH THE 'RIGHT HAND SIDE' COLUMN FOR CANONICAL STATUS

 

JUNE 29, 2018

Repost : MULLER, LADARIA, DI NOI, POZZO, KASPAR AND KOCH WANT THE SSPX TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH THE 'RIGHT HAND SIDE' COLUMN FOR CANONICAL STATUS

FEBRUARY 1, 2014

MULLER, LADARIA, DI NOI, POZZO, KASPAR AND KOCH WANT THE SSPX TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH THE 'RIGHT HAND SIDE' COLUMN FOR CANONICAL STATUS

 
Pope Francis wants the Franciscans of the Immaculate to accept Vatican Council II with the right hand side column as do the Jesuits and Dominicans.
Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre did not know that Vatican Council II affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus, with the left hand side column ?
For Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Michael Voris and Robert Sungenis Vatican Council II is 'ambigous' since they are using the right hand side column;  explicit for us, known in reality,visible in the flesh,defacto,objective.
With the left hand side column Vatican Council II is in harmony with St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis Xavier and St. Francis of Assisi on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is  also in agreement with the Nicene and Athanasius Creed.
With the right hand side column Vatican Council II contradicts itself. Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation.Lumen Gentium 16 says those in invincible ignorance can be saved implying there are known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7. The same confusion would be there in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Dominus Iesus, Redemptoris Missio etc.
The hermeneutic of continuity or rupture depends on the hermeneutic with the left hand or right hand side column.
During the Vatican-SSPX talks, initiated by Pope Benedict XVI, both sides were using the right hand side column.
Ecclesia Dei's Archbishop Di Noi and Monisgnor Guido Pozzo are liberals since they use the right hand side column. They may be traditional on other aspects of the Catholic Faith.
For full canonical status the Vatican expects the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) to interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side column.The SSPX seems unaware of there being two options in the interpretation of the Council, one rational and traditional and the other irrational and a break with extra eclesiam nulla salus and Tradition.
They all interpret Pope Pius XII and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 using the right hand side column.
They criticize Fr. Leonard Feeney since they assume there are known, explicit, visible, de facto, exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. If they used the left hand side column they would support Fr.Leonard Feeney. Vatican Council II would be traditional on other religions and Christian communities and churches.Religious communities would not reject the teachings of their founders on the subject of salvation.
What makes you a liberal or a traditionalist is not if you accept or reject Vatican Council II but if you are using the left hand side or the right hand side column in the interpretation of the Council or the Catechism.
Fr.John Zuhlsdorf has written that the Vatican could grant the SSPX canonical status 'with the stroke of a pen'. It seems that the Vatican has simply to announce that all salvation referred to in the Council, has to be interpreted with the left hand side column. So Vatican Council II would not contradict the traditional teaching on inter religious dialogue and ecumenism.Vatican Council II would support the SSPX's traditional position.
With the Council affirming the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salusCatholics have a duty to proclaim the dogma in a secular state.Dignitatis Humane,Vatican Council II refers to the freedom of religious worship, in a state with a secular Constitution and the right for Catholics to proclaim their faith.
 
All salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3),seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) etc are either:

implicit                      or     explicit for us.

hypothetical             or     known in reality.

invisible                    or     visible in the flesh.

dejure ( in principle or     defacto ( in fact ).

subjective                or     objective.

So one can choose from the left hand side or the right hand sidecolumn.

If the right hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council IIcontradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition in general on other religions and Christian communities and churches. There are known exceptions in 2014 to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Cathlic Church. The dead- saved are visible.

If the left hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus, nor Tradition on other religions and Christian communities and churches.

Most people interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side values.

So the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance was never ever an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, unless one is using the right hand side column.There were and are no known exceptions.


-Lionel Andrades
Posted by at No comments:

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 so they 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  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

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/09/christianity-and-world-religions-of.html



2

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

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/09/archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-interpreted_26.html



 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

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/09/pope-paul-vi-brought-in-smoke-of-satan.html



SEPTEMBER 23, 2021


Pope Francis and Pope Benedict could correct the error in Wikipedia and Internet resources and the German theological and catechetical publications
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/09/pope-francis-and-pope-benedict-could.html



 AUGUST 28, 2021

So we proclaim the Faith and return to traditional mission as at the time of St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Francis Xavier

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/so-we-proclaim-faith-and-return-to.html


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

The sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery and the Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae use the false premise to interpret the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance to create a break with 16th century EENS.Neither can the two say in public that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not literal cases. I have been asking them this for a few years now. : if they do admit it they would have to concede that they made an objective mistake on Vatican Council II all these years

 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2021

The Ecclesia Dei communities must tell the present two popes to interpret the Council with the rational premise and then support the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, based upon the strict interpretation of EENS, supported by Vatican Council II ( rational). They must tell the two popes to affirm the traditional ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church for all Christians, since Unitatatis Redintigratio 3 does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They must demand that Pope Francis and Pope Benedict return to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church since there is nothing in the entire text of Lumen Gentium to contradict the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church

 COMMENTS FROM THE BLOG VOX CANTORIS

SEPTEMBER 10, 2021

The message again is -use the rational premise to interpret Vatican Council II and also other Magisterial documents and you return to Tradition without having to reject the Council. This is not because I say so but because this happens every time you use the rational premise. You can see it for yourself. This is independent of me


 Comments from the blog Vox Cantoris, 


Blogger Catholic Mission said...

ose guadalupe rodriguez said...
Clearly submission to the holy father,to the supreme pontiff, to pope francis, to the bergoglian magisterium, to lumen gentium #25, to the vatican II.

Lionel:
No. With the false premise there is no submission to Pope Francis, Vatican Council II ( with the irrational premise) etc.
This is the point of my comments here on this thread.
I want the Ecclesia Dei communities to know that they can interpret Vatican Council II with a rational or irrational premise and the conclusion will be different. It will be traditional or non traditional. This hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition does not depend upon Pope Francis or the CDF.
The issue is the rational premise.
____________________

Anonymous said...
Vatican II is a counterfeit church headed by an imposter. It is not the church of Christ. Fake and corrupted. The blind leading the blind. It includes delusional FSSP and SSPX priests, - many of them are honest (but delusional), and will wake up shortly. Vatican II religion serves the NWO agenda. There are no negotiations with Judases. All faithful will go underground soon to celebrate TLM. Some already started new covenants and monasteries. After a while, Holy Ghost will gather these souls and renew Catholic Church, the true church of Christ.
Lionel: 
Vatican Council II can be interpreted in harmony with the past exclusivist ecclesiology, the Syllabus of Errors and EENS.The Council then is traditional and it is not just pastoral. It does not contradict EENS, the Athanasius Creed etc and so it is dogmatic.
Without the false premise and with the rational premise the Council is dogmatic.
The message again is -use the rational premise to interpret Vatican Council II and also other Magisterial documents and you return to Tradition without having to reject the Council.
This is not because I say so but because this happens every time you use the rational premise. You can see it for yourself. This is independent of me.-Lionel Andrades

8:27 am, September 08, 2021

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
They sound like terrified beggars who expect to be squashed.

Anonymous Anonymous said...
What a fawning, sickening statement they came up with. Absolutely useless. If that's all the response they have then they are done for, Bergoglio and his ilk will devour their institutes just like the Franciscans of the Immaculate.


Lionel:
They are on the defensive since they do not know about Vatican Council II interpreted with a rational premise.
It is Pope Francis and Pope Benedict who are in schism and heresy with their irrational interpretation of the Council. This error has to be exposed by the Ecclesia Dei communities.
Why should Catholics interpret the Council with the irrational premise and create a rupture with Tradition ? There is a choice.
Why should the Ecclesia Dei communities continue to interpret the Council with an irrational premise , which produces a schismatic result, and then continue to be obedient ?

They must tell the present two popes to interpret the Council with the rational premise and then support Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, based upon the strict interpretation of EENS, supported by Vatican Council II ( rational).

They must tell the two popes to affirm the traditional ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church for all Christians, since Unitatatis Redintigratio 3 does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

They must demand that Pope Francis and Pope Benedict return to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church since there is nothing in the entire text of Lumen Gentium to contradict the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.

They do not have to be fawning. Theology and doctrine is on their side. -Lionel Andrades

8:35 am, September 08, 2021


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous Paul Dale said...

We owe our allegiance to the pope, but which pope Hammer? Simples: to the one who is reigning. But both call themselves popes - one emeritus, the other Bishop of Rome - so who do we follow? It is very straight forward because it is evident that Pope Benedict XVI did not resign the See of Peter. Very evident. It is all in canon law. I will not try to go through this now but advise you to go to fromrome.info where a very knowledgeable and expert latinist has laid it all out.

Lionel:
On this thread I have been trying to show how important it is to interpret Church Documents with a rational and not irrational premise.
Both Pope Francis and Pope Benedict are using the same New Theology created with a false premise, inference and non traditional conclusion. So they are schismatically in a break with the past Magisterium.
Similarly From Rome.info is also interpreting Vatican Council II with a false premise.
This is something evident. Don't take my word for it. You can consciously interpret the Council with a false or rational premise and the conclusion will be different. You can see it for yourself.
The sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery and the Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae use the false premise to interpret the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance to create a break with 16th century EENS.Neither can the two say in public that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not literal cases. I have been asking them this for a few years now.
If they say that the baptism of desire etc are not literal cases in 2021 then they would have to say that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 etc are also not literal cases and so are not a break with Tradition ( EENS, Syllabus etc).
This means they were wrong all these years and Vatican Council II is no reason to go into sedevacantism.So they simply block me, end the discussion or do not answer.
This is also the issue with the Ecclesia Dei communities.
-Lionel Andrades

THURSDAY, 2 SEPTEMBER 2021

COMMUNIQUÉ OF THE SUPERIORS GENERAL OF THE COMMUNITIES "ECCLESIA DEI"

https://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2021/09/communique-of-superiors-general-of.html

____________________________






https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-ecclesia-dei-communities-must-tell_13.html


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

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

 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


 

-Lionel Andrades








Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

RVK Newscast #131: Action at the Volcano – Unexpected Lava Flow

Posted by at No comments:

La Palma volcano: Swimming pools bubble up as lava spreads through streets | ITV News

Posted by at No comments:

La Palma volcano: Firefighters retreat as eruption intensifies | DW News

Posted by at No comments:

Lumen Gentium 14 ( baptism of desire) and Lumen Gentium 16(invincible ignorance ) are mentioned by Wikipedia with reference to Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is as if they are practical exceptions

 

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 14: "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."

  • Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 16: ". . .Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. . .But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. . ."
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus
  • NOTE : Lumen Gentium 14 ( baptism of desire) and Lumen Gentium 16(invincible ignorance ) are mentioned by Wikipedia with reference to Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is  as if they are practical exceptions.For them to be exceptions the false premise had to be used. With the false premise there is the New Theology. It says outside the Church there is known salvation. Outside the Church there is salvation.-Lionel Andrades

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus
    • Posted by at No comments:
    Labels:

    The World Over September 23, 2021

    Posted by at No comments:

    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

     



    Image result for International Theological Commission Photo

    CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS BY THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION (1997) APPROVED BY POPE BENEDICT AND CARDINAL LUIZ LADARIA SJ.

    INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

    CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS
    (1997)


    66. In his encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pius XII addresses the question, How are those who attain salvation outside visible communion with the Church related to her? He says that they are oriented to the mystical body of Christ by a yearning and desire of which they are not aware (DS 3821).(Lionel: But this is a reference  by Pope Pius XII to hypothetical and invisible cases.This is something obvious.It is common sense.) The opposition of the American Jesuit Leonard Feeney, who insisted on the exclusivist interpretation of the expression extra ecclesiam nulla solus, afforded the occasion for the letter of the Holy Office, dated 8 August ,1949, to the archbishop of Boston, which rejected Feeney s interpretation and clarified the teaching of Pius XII. (So he means hypothetical cases are objective exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.He has used the false premise.)  The letter distinguishes between the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation (necessitas praecepti) and the necessity of the indispensable means of salvation (intrinseca necessitas); in relationship to the latter, the Church is a general help for salvation (DS 3867—69).(O.K,Hypothetically but what has this to do with EENS ? The Letter made an irrational inference too.)  In the case of invincible ignorance the implicit desire of belonging to the Church suffices; this desire will always be present when a man aspires to conform his will to that of God (DS 3870).(Again he is referring to an unknown person so why is this mentioned with reference to EENS? Why? Since his new theology is based upon the irrational premise.) But faith, in the sense of Hebrews 11:6, and love are always necessary with intrinsic necessity (DS 3872).

    67. Vatican Council II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But in using it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation.(He interprets Lumen Gentium 14 as referring to known people saved outside the Church and so there are known people saved in invincible ignorance.So only those who know and are not in ignorance need to enter the Church for him and not all non Catholics in general.  The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII,( The teaching of Pope Pius XII on EENS with known cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance.Unknown and hypothetical cases are made practical and known exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.Unknown cases are known exceptions. ) but emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this expression.(Vaguely supporting the false premise and the New Theology which creates the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition).

    68. In contrast to Pius XII, the council refused to speak of a votum implicitum (implicit desire) and applied the concept of the votum only to the explicit desire of catechumens to belong to the Church (LG 14).(The catechumen who is saved with implicit or explicit desire is a hypothetical case. So why is it mentioned here ? Since it is not a hypothetical case for Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr. Luiz Ladaria s.j. ) With regard to non-Christians, it said that they are ordered in diverse ways to the people of God.(He does not say that they are all oriented to Hell. Since that would be the traditional Feeneyite theology with unknown cases not known exceptions to traditional EENS) In accord with the different ways with which the salvific will of God embraces non-Christians, the council distinguished four groups: first, Jews; second, Muslims; third, those who without fault are ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and do not know the Church but who search for God with a sincere heart and try to fulfill his will as known through conscience; fourth, those who without fault have not yet reached an express knowledge of God but who nonetheless try to lead a good life (LG 16). (For him the exceptions to the norm, faith and baptism , are the  ordinary means of salvation. )-Christianity and the World Religions, ITC, 1997

    Even ITC's The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptised is also presented with the false premise , which is a specific error in Vatican Council II.It creates the New Theology.Liberals and Lefebvrists interpret Vatican Council II with the New Theology.


    58. In the face of new problems and situations and of an exclusive interpretation of the adage: (it was a dogma  defined by three Church Councils in the Extraordinary Magisterium and not an adage)“salus extra ecclesiam non est”, (it was always extra ecclesiam nulla salus) the magisterium, in recent times, has articulated a more nuanced understanding as to the manner in which a saving relationship with the Church can be realized.(He is referring to his irrational  interpretation with the false premise.He calls it a nuanced version. His 'nuanced version' of course is not the traditional exclusivist understanding of salvation with the rational premise.) The Allocution of Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam (1854) clearly states the issues involved: “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it, will perish in the flood.(This is traditional Feeneyite theology which he will be contradicted in the next line by assuming unknown cases of being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to all needing to enter the Catholic Church for salvation) On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord” (In other words they are exceptions to EENS  for the ITC and so there is no more an exclusive interpretation. - 
    THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS  WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html  
    -Lionel Andrades

    _____________________________________________________

    Former Secretary of the International Theological Commission holds that those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance are known to us and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

    NO NEED FOR ‘SECRET TALKS’ ANYMORE: WE KNOW THE HERETICAL POSITION OF THE VATICAN NEGOTIATORS

    BISHOP CHARLES MOREROD O.P IN BLATANT HERESY IS TO SPEAK BEFORE THE POPE ON ANGLICAN RELATIONS

    VATICAN'S INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION MAKES AN ERROR IN ITS POSITION PAPER CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS

    INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION USES PREMISE THAT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT : LIMBO

    The International Theological Commission's position paper Christianity and the World Religions 1997 has an objective factual error and is approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger : invincible ignorance is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

    INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION ASSUMES ‘SEEDS OF THE WORD’ (VATICAN COUNCIL II ) IN OTHER RELIGIONS ARE KNOWN TO US AND THIS IS AN EXPLICIT EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

    VATICAN'S INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION MAKES AN ERROR IN ITS POSITION PAPER CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS

    VATICAN COUNCIL II REJECTS THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS
    _____________________
    Posted by at No comments:
    Labels:
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)