Catholic Answers is not telling the truth to Catholics so that their apologists can be politically correct with the Left.

 

 JULY 23, 2023

Trent Horn says that Protestants and other Christians are part of the Catholic Church because of their baptism even though they do not have Catholic faith and do not accept the Sacraments. This is a new doctrine. It is possible for him to say this since he interprets Vatican Council II (UR 3 etc) irrationally.

Trent Horn says that Protestants and other Christians are part of the Catholic Church because of their baptism even though they do not have Catholic faith and do not accept the Sacraments. This is a new doctrine. It is possible for him to say this since he interprets Vatican Council II (UR 3 etc) irrationally.

Trent Horn says that Protestants and other Christians are part of the Catholic Church because of their baptism even though they do not have Catholic faith and do not accept the Sacraments. This is a new doctrine. It is possible for him to say this since he interprets Vatican Council II (UR 3 etc) irrationally.

Vatican Council II says Protestants can be saved in ‘imperfect communion’ ( UR 3) and God has not restricted them from salvation.UR 3 states this, since outside the Church there is known salvation was the new teaching of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office. It was accepted by Pope Paul VI.

So   Rahner, Ratzinger, Bea and others at Vatican Council II, in principle, believe that outside the Catholic Church there is known salvation. They allege irrationally that  there are personally known non Catholics saved.In other words there are visible people saved without the baptism of water.The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus was made obsolete in 1949-Boston by the Americanists.

But we know practically, there can be no known case of a Protestant being in Heaven  who is saved outside the Catholic Church. In our human reality there is no such person visible - who can contradict the dogma EENS.

So it is wrong for Trent Horn to interpret LG 15 as a visible case in 1965-2023 and an exception for the dogma EENS.We do not know any one in particular who is saved in imperfect communion with the Catholic Church ( UR 3 etc). It is wrong to assume that the Mystical Body of Christ exists in general, outside the visible boundaries of the Church .There are no objective cases. It is irrational for him to suggest that there is known salvation outside the institutional Church. We do not know of any such case in 2023.

The 1949 mistake of the Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO) was repeated by Rahner and Ratzinger in 1965.This is unacceptable.The 1949 LOHO was irrational, non traditional, heretical and schismatic.

For me LG 8,14,15 and 16 refer to hypothetical cases.So there is nothing in the text of Vatican Council II to contradict the Athanasius Creed.This Creed says all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation. All need Catholic faith and the baptism of water for salvation ( AG 7, LG 14). All.So Vatican Council II ( AG 7, LG 14)  does not exclude Catholic faith.

Without the Catholic Sacraments, Protestants cannot be saved. They are outside the Church without Catholic faith.The Council is saying that only the baptism of water is not sufficient. Since over time a person can commit mortal sins of faith in ignorance or other reason. The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and this does not include all the Christian denominations.

This is the Conciliar teaching when UR 3 etc are interpreted only rationally i.e invisible cases are invisible and not visible.

There were some or many in 1965  who were using the New Theology of the 1949 LOHO, based upon the invisible-visible confusion, to suggest that there is known salvation outside the Catholic Church.So it was wrongly inferred that there are objective exceptions for the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.

Trent Horn is interpreting Vatican Council II with this hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.I interpret the Council with the hermeneutic of continuity with the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors , the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the rest of Tradition.

For me UR 3 is not break with Tradition as  cited by Brother Peter Dimond.LG 8,14, 15 and 16 are also only hypothetical cases. So they cannot be objective exceptions for EENS in 2023.- Lionel Andrades

JULY 22, 2023

Like Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the CDF, Catholic Answers interprets Vatican Council II irrationally. They also reject the Church Councils and Church Fathers on EENS and the reference to Tradition by Brother Peter Dimond

In this video Trent Horn is irrational and political. He is projecting Lumen Gentium (8, 14, 15,16 etc) as being physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church in 1965-2023.So for him these are exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). So he criticizes Brother Peter Dimond.

But Peter Dimond corrects Trent Horn by quoting traditional sources, which do not mention any exceptions.

HOW CAN LUMEN GENTIUM 8,14,15 & 16 REFER TO PHYSICALLY VISIBLE CASES

How can Lumen Gentium 16 for example, refer to a physically visible non Catholic saved outside the Church? How can it be a visible exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) ?.Common sense tells us that these are  invisible cases for us human beings.They can only be  known to God. For us humans these are only hypothetical and theoretical cases. But this was not known to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when they issued their Letter to the Archbishop of Boston with reference to Fr. Leonard Feeney. It was also not known to the CDF in 1965. The CDF did not interpret Vatican Council II rationally.

The Church Fathers interpreted the baptism of desire , baptism of blood etc rationally like me and not irrationally like Jimmy Akins and Trent Horn

So like Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the CDF, Catholic Answers interprets Vatican Council II irrationally They also reject the Church Councils on EENS which Brother Peter Dimond quotes.

• Since they interpret Vatican Council II irrationally they are also interpreting the Creeds irrationally.The Athanasius Creed is made obsolete by Catholic Answers. The Creeds are connected to the interpretation of Vatican Council II. This is a discovery.

Trent Horn interprets Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition but for me there is continuity with Tradition.

Catholic Answers accepts the 1949 Letter of the CDF which confuses invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS.I avoid this mistake.

I AVOID THE INVISIBLE PEOPLE ARE VISIBLE CONFUSION

So for me what Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar, Murray, Kung, Ottaviani, Bea and Lefebvre said or did at Vatican Council II is irrelevant. Since I can interpret Vatican Council II rationally in harmony with Feeneyite EENS. I simply avoid the invisible people are visible confusion. The Council then supports EENS according to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) of Pope Honorius III.It  did not mention any exceptions. This was the understanding  EENS also of St. Dominic Guzman and his friends who founded the Dominican Order at that time.

The Bible supports the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is Feeneyite like Brother Peter Dimond and not Cushingite, like it is for Catholic Answers.

WHEN I MEET A HINDU, BUDDHIST OR SIKH

So when I meet Hindus, Buddhists or Sikhs I know that they are oriented to Hell without faith and baptism (AG 7, LG 14, CCC 845,846, 1257). Catholic faith and the baptism of water are the ordinary means of salvation. I cannot know of any extraordinary means of salvation.Only God can know of an extraordinary means of salvation.

Since ethically, Vatican Council II can only be interpreted rationally, there can only be the past exclusivist ecclesiology at Mass, in Latin or the vernacular. We have only one interpretation of the Council and it is rational. With the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) today the same as it was for the missionaries in the 16^th century, we can only have the lex orandi of the past. Since the Council is in harmony with the ecclesiology of the 16^th century Roman Missal. The New Missal does not affirm the dogma EENS since it interprets Vatican Council II rationally.

AN APOLOGIST HERE  CHANGES THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CREEDS

How can an apologist of Catholic Answers be called Catholic, when he changes the interpretation of the Creeds etc for political - Left reasons? This is ideological and not Catholic.

Peter Dimond did not correct him on this point since the Most Holy Family Monastery also interprets the baptism of desire (BOD), baptism of blood (BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I)  irrationally and so Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition for him too.

AT VATICAN COUNCIL II THE ATTACK WAS ON EENS

At Vatican Council II the attack was on EENS. They thought they could get rid of the salvation dogma by re-interpreting invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I as being visible examples of salvation outside the Church. So there were allegedly known people, non Catholics, saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.

So there are many statements in Vatican Council II based upon this error. Otherwise why would they have to mention LG 8, 14, 15 and 16?

The popes only have teaching authority today when they affirm the strict interpretation of  extra ecclesiam nulla salus like the Church Councils. It is not magisterial or apostolic to re-interpret the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance irrationally to produce a rupture with the popes and saints over the centuries on the salvation dogma.There is no teaching authority when Vatican Council II is interpreted irrationally.

However, we have undone their bad work. Their bad philosophy and theology which is not Catholic can be replaced. We have made Rahner, Congar, Ratzinger, Balthazar and others obsolete now. We now have to go back to the old moral and faith theology. Since the New Theology and New Ecclesiology is based upon Vatican Council II irrational. So we are not obliged to follow them.

CATHOLIC ANSWERS WOULD ONLY BE MAGISTERIAL WITH VATICAN COUNCIL II RATIONAL 

Pope Francis, the cardinals, bishops and Catholic Answers  would be Magisterial on Vatican Council II only when they interpret the Council rationally. They are irrational presently.

When they interpret the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms irrationally they are not magisterial. Instead they are heretical and schismatic. This is a mortal sin of faith.

Jimmy Akins and Trent Horn and the other apologists at Catholic Answers are also unethical when they choose an irrational premise (invisible people are visible, LG 16 refers to a visible non Catholic saved outside the Church), irrational inference (LG 8, 14, 16 etc are visible examples of salvation outside the Church and so are objective exceptions for the dogma EENS) and  non-traditional conclusion (Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition, EENS, original interpretation of the Creeds etc). 

I CHOOSE THE ETHICAL OPTION

I choose the ethical option. I choose a rational premise (invisible people are invisible, LG 16 refers to an invisible non Catholic saved outside the Church), irrational inference (LG 8, 14, 16 etc are invisible examples of salvation outside the Church and so are non objective. Invisible cases cannot be practical exceptions for the dogma EENS. I choose the rational and  non-traditional conclusion (Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Tradition ( EENS, original interpretation of the Creeds etc).It has the hermeneutic of continuity with the Fourth Lateran Council II ( 1215) and the Council of Florence (1442)  which defined the dogma EENS.  

Catholic Answers is not telling the truth to Catholics so that their apologists can be politically correct with the Left.        -Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/07/message-incomplete-in-this-video-trent.html