The bishops cannot continue to interpret
Vatican Council II with a Fake Premise instead of a Rational Premise and expect
everyone to follow them. The Bishops are expected to interpret the Creeds, Catechisms, extra
ecclesiam nulla salus ( baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible
ignorance) and Vatican Council II ( no objective cases of LG 14 ( baptism of
desire), LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) etc rationally and so create the
expected harmony with Catholic Tradition.
They need to proclaim that according to
Vatican Council II salvation is restricted to the Catholic Church.Since LG 8, LG 14,
LG 16 etc are only hypothetical cases.This is Vatican Council II interpreted
rationally.It would be the Catholic faith taught to First Communicants and in
Catechesis for adults. This is the traditional ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic
Church. It could be taught at diocesan schools and colleges when the
Council is interpreted with the Rational Premise. It can be proclaimed in
homilies and at the parish school.
People in the pews at Holy Mass must
know that according to Vatican Council II there is exclusivist salvation in
only the Catholic Church.
The bishop must clarify that the norm
for salvation in the Catholic Church is faith and the baptism of water, according to Vatican Council II (AG 7). So other religions are not paths to
salvation and their members are oriented to the Catholic Church for salvation (Notification,
CDF, Dupuis, 2001). If theoretically it is considered a possibility this can be
known only to God. Possibilities are not objective cases in 1965-2021.So in
general non Catholics are oriented to the fires of Hell, without faith and the
baptism of water. There is always hope for them as long as they live. They are
not condemned while they are still alive. The good things in their religion could be an impetus for conversion. Though salvation is restricted by God to
the Catholic Church, the Holy Spirit can act outside the visible boundaries of
the Catholic Church i.e. among those who do not have faith and the baptism of
water.
The bishops must tell Parish Priests,
Rectors and Catechists to interpret Vatican Council II only with the Rational
Premise and avoid the confusion of the Fake Premise since the Council (
rational) is not a break with Tradition ( EENS, Syllabus, Athanasius Creed
etc).
CATECHISMS NOW IN HARMONY
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is
in harmony with the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Catechism of
Baltimore, the Catechism of Pope Pius X and other Catechisms, when the Rational
Premise is chosen to interpret the Catechisms and the Fake Premise is avoided.
The bishops have to understand that
there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the
other is irrational, one is interpreted with a Rational Premise, and the other
with the Fake Premise. So the conclusion is traditional or non-traditional.
There is the hermeneutic of continuity or rupture with Tradition depending upon
the premise chosen. It determines if we have the New Theology or the old
theology before us.
THE PREMISE DETERMINES THE CONCLUSION
It all depends upon which premise we use to interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II. In reality we know that we cannot meet or see any one saved with the baptism of desire (LG 14), invincible ignorance and with a good conscience (LG 16) etc. This can only be known to God. Similarly LG 8, GS 22, UR 3, NA 2 etc, can only be hypothetical and not objective examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church.
USCCB BISHOPS
The American bishops, for example, could
be asked to use the Rational Premise. Since even by secular standards it is
unethical to interpret LG 14, LG 16 etc, as referring to explicit and not implicit
cases in 1965-2021.It is unethical to project them as being known and not
unknown people in the present times. It is false when the bishops confuse what
is invisible as being visible. They misunderstand what is subjective as being objective.
Yet upon this philosophical error they have created a New Theology with which
they interpret Vatican Council II and other Magisterial Documents, to please
the Left and create a false break with Catholic Tradition.
OUR PROFESSION OF FAITH IS DIFFERENT
1. I, Lionel, believe in one known baptism for the forgiveness of sins, it is the baptism of water. I do not believe in three visible baptisms (desire, blood, invincible ignorance) which exclude the baptism of water (and so are practical exceptions for extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and the Athanasius Creed). The bishops cannot say the same. Our Profession of Faith is different.
2.I believe all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation ( Athanasius Creed) and there are no known exceptions in 1965-2021.For the bishops LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are exceptions for EENS. So they reject the original understanding of the Athanasius and Nicene Creed. This is a common mortal sin of faith.
3. I believe in one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (Nicene Creed) which says outside the Church there is no salvation. There are no exceptions for me. The bishops would affirm the Four Marks of the Church but with exceptions.
4. For me the First Commandment says I am the Lord your God thou shalt have no other God but me. We worship God in only the Catholic Church. There are no known exceptions of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance etc for me. For the bishops there are exceptions.
5. Now there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational. I choose the rational option. Most Catholics like their bishop choose the irrational version.
CANON LAW
According to Canon Law a bishop needs to
be a Catholic and he needs to believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church
which have been the same over the centuries. He must be ready to affirm them.There is an Oath of Office of the bishop and his rejection of modernism.
How can the bishops, in public, choose
to reject the Athanasius Creed by using a False Premise?
How can they re-interpret the Nicene
Creed with a Fake Premise and radically change its meaning. They now suggest
that there are three or more known baptisms, which exclude the baptism of
water?
How can the baptism of desire, baptism
of blood and invincible ignorance be a known baptism; someone who is personally
saved outside the Church in the present times (1949-2021), for them to be
practical exceptions for EENS? They reject Feeneyite EENS since there are
exceptions for them.
How can there be practical exceptions
for EENS with people being saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of
water, which is mentioned in the Nicene Creed (I believe in one baptism for the
forgiveness of sins).Who among us can see or meet these exceptions?
How can there be two interpretations of
the First Commandment and the bishops choose the irrational version which supports
indifferentism? The irrational version comes with the Fake Premise.
How can the bishops choose the
irrational version of Vatican Council II and then claim that the Council is a
break with Tradition, a ‘new revelation’, and a ‘new revolution’ in the Church?
How can there be a development of doctrine or dogma, based upon a False Premise.
There is a New Theology, New Ecumenism,
New Ecclesiology, New Evangelization etc, all, based upon the False Premise and
this is allowed canonically ? This is heresy and schism. How are the bishops
allowed to offer Holy Mass?
MY REFERENCE IS VATICAN COUNCIL II AND THE CATECHISM
For me Vatican Council II is not a break
with Tradition. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, in Vatican Council
II, refer to invisible people in 1965-2021.If there are such people saved they
would only be known to God. So LG 8 etc do not contradict the past
ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church. Outside the Church there is no
salvation (AG 7).Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for
salvation.All.Ad Gentes 7 is cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church
(846) under the title Outside the Church there is no Salvation. All who are
saved are saved through Jesus and the Church and all need to enter the Catholic
Church with faith and the baptism of water for salvation (to avoid Hell).
BISHOPS CAN NO MORE REJECT TRADITION
The bishops can no more reject the
Athanasius Creed and the rest of Tradition by citing Vatican Council II since
now we can interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise (invisible cases
are invisible in 2021) and the bishop can avoid the Irrational Premise (invisible
cases are physically visible in the present times, LG 8, LG 16 etc refer to invisible
people. So now there is no rational reason to create a break with Tradition.
There is no development of doctrine with
Vatican Council II. The Council is in harmony with the past Magisterium.There
is no new revelation with Vatican Council II.
So the bishops need to affirm the Athanasius Creed, the dogma EENS and Vatican Council II (rational). They must not reject the Council. –Lionel Andrades
Posts
