With Vatican Council II (Irrational) for Scott Hahn and Michael Lofton the Bible has made a mistake? There are two versions of John 3:5? One of the past and one of the present.Two versions of the Bible?.
I interpret the Council with the
Rational Premise, Feeneyism. Invisible cases of LG 8, 14 and 16 are invisible
in 2022.So the Council does not contradict John 3:5(all need the baptism of
water for salvation).There is no new version.
But for them LG 8, 14 and 16 are
physically visible.This is Cushingism. Cushingism says what is invisible is
visible and Feeneyism says what is invisible is visible. So there are two
different premises.There have to be two different inferences. Two different
conclusions too. The conclusion for them is that Vatican Council II(
Cushingite) is a rupture with John 3:5.It says there are exceptions. For me
Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) is not a rupture with John 3:5.There are no
visible examples of non Catholics saved outside the Church in 2022.
They are politically correct.They avoid
trouble. They simply infer that LG 8,14 and 16 are physically visible examples
of salvation outside the Church. So the old exegesis of John 3:5 is
contradicted.
Now in the Catholic Church we have two
interpretations of John 3:5- probably, yours and mine. It is definitely
theirs and mine.
From a magic bag they have brought out
visible exceptions for the Athanasius Creed too. The Great Commission would
have to fall too.Visible exceptions for the Great Commission?. Where are they?
Who do you know who will be saved outside the Catholic Church without faith and
the baptism of water and without mortal sins of morals? No one.There are no visible exceptions for the Great Commission for me.
The Athanasius Creeds says all need
Catholic Faith to go to Heaven and does not mention any exceptions.It is the
same with the Nicene Creed. I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of
sins.
But in Scot Hahn and Michael Lofton biblical
scholarship Jesus’ teaching in John 3:5 and Mark 16:16 has to be put aside.Otherwise
they would be Feeneyite on extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The Left will
object.How could they be allowed to teach theology? The bishop will not permit
it.
All the apologists at EWTN love the
innovation.It is official heresy and
schism created with Cushingism.But it allows them to continue.
They need the fake premise and
inference. They need the fake reasoning in their Bible exegesis.Then there is a
break with the centuries-old interpretation of John 3:5 etc, which did not
mention any known exceptions.
Michael Lofton in his theological series
the other day said the Bible had no mistakes for him and Scott Hahn. He asked
if Vatican Council II indicated otherwise.He
restricted his comments to Dei Verbum only.
He did not refer to Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14.They support extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They also refer to being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of water.
AG 7 and LG 14 can be interpreted with
Feeneyism or Cushingism. With Feeneyism AG 7 does not contradict Matt 3:5. With
Cushingism there are alleged known exceptions in the present times. These are
people who do not have to be Catholic and who will go to Heaven or are in
Heaven.
So now there are two interpretations of
John 3:5; with and without exceptions.
Michael Lofton in a new program on
outside the Church there is no salvation yesterday could not discuss Ad Gentes
7 and Lumen Gentium 14.All need faith and baptism for salvation. The
Church is necessary. He wants to remain politically correct with EWTN. For them
LG 14 and LG 16 would be saying there are practical exceptions for all needing
faith and baptism for salvation. For me there are no practical exceptions. LG
14 and LG 16 are references always to hypothetical cases.
So I still affirm the old theology with
Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) and they affirm a New Theology which has
exceptions for EENS with Vatican Council II (Cushingite).
With the New Theology Scott Hahn and
Michael Lofton put aside the ecumenism of return and replace it with the New
Ecumenism and New Ecclesiology.
They break away from the traditional
exegesis of Scripture. They now endorse the official hermeneutic of rupture
with the past. They are supported by the cardinal and archbishops of the
Congregation for the Doctrine for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican.
Their errancy in Scripture emerges with
their irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.I avoid it.
With the False Premise and Inference
their concept of Evangelisation and mission cannot be ecclesiocentric. It is
not that of St. Joan of Arc or the Vendees. It is Christocentric without being
ecclesiocentric.
They are like Pope Paul VI, who did not
interpret the Council rationally.
So at the Novus Ordo main line Catholic
Church there is a development of doctrine with Cushingism. There is a break
with the ecclesiology of the pre-1965 Missal which was Feeneyite. Even at the
FSSP Mass, the homilies are Cushingite. So they are approved by the Left.
The SSPX though goes back to Tradition in
their homilies. But they too interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism and
not Feeneyism. They are as Cushingite as Bishop Barron or Cardinal Walter
Kasper.
SEPTEMBER 8, 2022
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment