Rahner,
Ratzinger, Congar, Murray, Balthazar and Lefebvre did not know that the
orthodox ( blue) passages in Vatican Council II support Feneeyite extra
ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), or EENS according to the Fourth Lateran Council
(1215) which did not mention any exceptions. Also, very important, these blue
passages are not contradicted by the hypothetical (red) passages in Vatican
Council II. The red passages refer to invisible cases and are not practical
exceptions for the dogma EENS and the blue orthodox passages in Vatican Council
II.
So now we
know that LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to hypothetical cases
only but they did not know this in 1965.
This was not
known to Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Ludwig Ott, Fr. John Hardon and
Fr.William Most, all, good apologists. It was not known to Pope Paul VI and
Cardinal Ottaviani, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The conservatives in general did not know this. It seems, it was not known to
Fr. Leonard Feeney, Brother Francis Maluf micm, Roberto dei Mattei, Fr.
Nicholas Gruner, John Vennari and Joseph Natale, the founder of the Most Holy
Family Monastery, NY, USA.
They did not
know that Vatican Council II had the hermeneutic of continuity with the past
ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church, when LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS
22 etc, are seen as only hypothetical cases. They did not know that LG 8 etc
referred to only hypothetical cases in 1965.So LG 8,14,15,16 etc could not be
projected as exceptions for the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
The 1949
Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston during the pontificate of
Pope Pius XII, made a mistake when it projected invisible cases of the baptism
of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible and
objective exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So Fr. Leonard
Feeney and the St. Benedict Center of that time were correct and the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Pius XII were wrong. Archbishop
Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston made an objective mistake. It is a
fact of life that we cannot physically see or meet someone saved outside the
Church with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance etc.
Louie
Verrecchio, Michael Matt, Mary Ann Kreitzer, Brother Andre Marie micm, Michael
and Peter Dimond, Fr. John Weinandy, Fr. Gerald Murray, Diane Montagna,
Cardinal Raymond Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider and all the Ecclesia Dei
communities, have always been interpreting, Vatican Council II, over the years,
irrationally and not rationally. - Lionel Andrades
NOVEMBER 2, 2023
The orthodox passages in blue support the past exclusivist ecclesiololgy, while the hypothetical passages in red, refer to physically invisible cases and so they do not contradict Tradition. This was perhaps not known to Fr. Leonard Feeney, Brother Francis Malus micm, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the SSPX bishops and Pope Paul VI.
Since the rational and Magisterial interpretation of the Catholic Church is ‘the red is not an exception to the blue’, the Church is saying, today, as in the past that other religions are not paths to salvation (AG 7 etc). So for the Catholic Church, Jews and Muslims, are oriented to Hell without ‘faith and baptism’ (AG 7) and they need to enter the Church as members (LG 16 etc) before they die.
So Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of continuity with the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), on EENS, an ecumenism of return of the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius X on other religioins not being means of salvation.
The orthodox passages in blue support the past exclusivist ecclesiololgy, while the hypothetical passages in red, refer to physically invisible cases so they do not contradict Tradition. This was perhaps not known to Fr. Leonard Feeney, Brother Francis Malus micm, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the SSPX bishops and Pope Paul VI.
-Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/11/the-orthodox-passages-in-blue-support.html
Posts
