I have texted Raymond Arroyo and also invited him for a conversation on Twitter but I get no response from him.
I have been saying that there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II one with the Rational Premise and the other with the Irrational Premise and the conclusions will be Traditional or Non Traditional. In his World Over report when with Robert Royal he referred to Vatican Council II, it was Vatican Council II ( Irrational) for the both of them.They were interpreting the Council like the 70 cardinals, bishops and lay theologians who met at Chicago last month.
So they all misinterpret hypothetical cases of LG 8,LG 14, LG 16 etc as referring to objective and practical exceptions for the Syllabus of Errors. Then they reject Tradition like Pope Benedict and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria.
But to use a False Premise is unethical.It is dishonest.
If they were honest they could say that they affirm the Syllabus of Errors (ecumenism of return) with there being no practical cases of Christians saved outside the Catholic Church in 2022.So there would not be any practical exceptions for the Athanasius Creed and the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.There would be no practical exceptions for Tradition.
It would mean that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance always refers to hypothetical and invisible cases and so are not practical exceptions for EENS according to the missionaries in the 16th century.Vatican Council II( Rational) supports the Jesuit missionaries in the Middle Ages.
These are the points which Raymond Arroyo does not respond to- EWTN and the National Catholic Register staff interpret Vatican Council II with the False Premise like the USCCB bishops. Lionel Andrades
-
Posts
