If you come to Vatican Council II knowing that the baptism of desire cannot be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( past or present) then the entire interpretation of Vatican Council II changes.Since there is a different premise and conclusion.
PHILOSOPHICAL ERRORS IN VATICAN COUNCIL II
If you come to Vatican Council II with this approach-that being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) and the baptism of desire(BOD) cannot be exceptions to EENS - you will find Vatican Council II full of philosophical errors.However if you avoid the error and re-interpret hypothetical cases (LG 16 etc) as being only hypothetical, then Vatican Council II has a refreshing continuity with Tradition, including the dogma EENS as it was known in the Middle Ages and to the Church Fathers.
SCANDAL
SCANDAL
That these errors have not been pointed out and they are still being taught to students at pontifical universities is a scandal.
ST.FRANCIS XAVIER/ST.THOMAS AQUINAS
ST.FRANCIS XAVIER/ST.THOMAS AQUINAS
Since hypothetical and invisible cases of BOD and I.I could never have been exceptions or relevant to EENS,we do not know any martyr saved with the baptism of blood (BOB) and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church who is in Heaven.God could have sent the martyr back to earth to be baptised with water( St.Francis Xavier) or God could have sent a preacher to this person to be saved, before he died nd which was unknown to the people of his time(St.Thomas Aquinas).
So for the Council Fathers in 1960-1965 to mention BOD and I.I as being relevant to all needing faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7, LG 14) was an objective mistake.
CDF NEGLIGENCE
CDF NEGLIGENCE
The mistake was supported after Vatican Council II.It was negligence at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger.The CDF Prefect protected the error within the Church.He supported the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 from where the mistake originated.While his friend Fr. Hans Kung S.J placed the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in the Denzinger.The Archdiocese of Boston suspiciously made this private Letter public some three years after it was issued by the Holy Office in Rome.When it was issued there were administrative irregularities ( See the website Catholicism.org).
IF BOD IS AN EXEPTION TO EENS YOUR A LIBERAL
IF BOD IS AN EXEPTION TO EENS YOUR A LIBERAL
So if you, like the cardinals at Vatican Council II, see 'invincible ignorance and a good concience'(LG 16) as being an exception to the dogma EENS;an explicit exception, then the interpretation of Vatican Council II is no more traditional.It does not support Tradition.Your a liberal.
IF BOD IS NOT AN EXCEPTION TO EENS YOUR NOT A LIBERAL
IF BOD IS NOT AN EXCEPTION TO EENS YOUR NOT A LIBERAL
However if unlike the magisterium in 1965 you interpret 'elements of sanctification and truth' (LG 8) and 'subsist it'(LG 8) as not being exceptions to Feeneyite EENs, then Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Tradition.It has the hermeneutic of continuity.There is no 'development of dogma'.Your a traditionalist or conservative Catholic who does not need to reject Vatican CouncilII and does not have to be a liberal.Your like me.
CDF HERESY
CDF HERESY
ANTI SEMITIC LAW USED AS A WHIP IN ITALY
Now if you confront the Dominican priests at the Angelicum with this information they will keep quiet. They will ask you to go away and not e-mail them.Since the rabbi teaching at the Angelicum, or rabbis Segni or Lara in Italy, could confront these priest-professors with their hated Anti-Semitism law.It is used as a whip against the Catholic Church.
So every one keeps quiet.For all of them BOD is an exception to EENs. It is not as it was known to the three Church Councils which defined it and did not mention any practical exceptions.
SSPX PRUDENTLY NOT ANTI SEMITIC : WILL NOT AFFIRM FAITH
SSPX PRUDENTLY NOT ANTI SEMITIC : WILL NOT AFFIRM FAITH
There are no practical exceptions to EENS says Chris Ferrara but for Bishop Bernard Fellay and the SSPX priests LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc are practical exceptions.The SSPX did not comment in 2015 when the Vatican and Leftist Jews 'released a new document reiterating that Catholics shouldn’t try to convert Jews', 1 .The SSPX also deserted Bishop Williamson and Fr.Floriano Abrahamovic and others, 2 so as not to appear Anti-semitic. Are they going to say that that BOD is not an exception to EENS?
TLM NEW ECCLESIOLOGY BASED ON BOD BEING EXCEPTIONS TO EENS
TLM NEW ECCLESIOLOGY BASED ON BOD BEING EXCEPTIONS TO EENS
The Traditional Latin Mass is offered and supported by Una Voce, Latin Mass Societies, Rorate Caeili, Fr. Z and Joseph Shaw only with the new ecclesiology.The new ecclesiology is based on BOD being an exception to EENS.Joseph Shaw keeps his teaching job at Oxford University since he is as liberal as Catholics Gavin C'Costa and Tom O'Loughlin, ultra liberals at the Engish universities, who probably don't attend the TLM.
NO ONE WANTS TO CORRECT ABP.KEVIN MCDONALD
NO ONE WANTS TO CORRECT ABP.KEVIN MCDONALD
For all three of them, as it is for Archbishop Kevin McDonald spokesman for the English bishops on inter-religious dialogue, 'seeds of the Word'(AG 11) and Gaudium et Specs 22 refer to exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.The Archbishop criticizes Fr. Leonard Feeney for not assuming, like him, that there were known cases, physically visible persons who were exceptions to traditional EENS.
So who is going to correct Archbishop McDonald and the English bishops? Joseph Shaw,Rorate Caeili, Fr.John Zuhlsdorf ? Unlikely since they have to preserve their personal interests.
NO INCARDINATION FOR PRIESTS WHO SAY BOD IS NOT AN EXCEPTION TO EENS
NO INCARDINATION FOR PRIESTS WHO SAY BOD IS NOT AN EXCEPTION TO EENS
Fr.Nicholas Gruner affirmed EENS and was not allowed to be incardinated.However he interpreted Vatican Council II with the irrational premise(like the Vatican Curia) and then rejected this interpretation of the Council(which they accepted).Satan and the Left knew that EENS was the real issue. Catholics in general do not know this.No one will tell it to them.
I know of a young Italian priest who was also hounded the same way in Rome, because of his position on EENS and other religions.
DECEPTION WAS STANDARD RELIGIOUS FORMATION FOR TWO POPES
DECEPTION WAS STANDARD RELIGIOUS FORMATION FOR TWO POPES
All this deception in theology was probably standard religious formation for Pope Benedict and Pope Francis and the Vatican cardinals.It is the same for the tradtionalists over some 70 years.
For instance the Rapid Response Team of the Fatima Network simply rejects Vatican Council II interpreted with BOD being an exception to EENS.They reject the Council and continue to interpret BOD as being an exception to EENS.With the same reasoning LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are all exceptions to EENS.They are not aware that they can interpret Vatican Council II without BOD being an exception to EENs.
REINTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH BOD NOT BEING AN EXCEPTION TO EENS
REINTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH BOD NOT BEING AN EXCEPTION TO EENS
Just accept BOD as being invisible and hypothetical ( which is common sense) and then LG 16 etc are not exceptions to EENS.Wikipedia has made a mistake. Check it out and ask them to correct it please.
There are no known cases of someone saved in invincible ignorance or with a good conscience, who did not need to enter the Church formally, with faith and baptism, for salvation.
IN THE PAST THE POPES KEPT THE JEWISH LEFT UNDER CONTROL
IN THE PAST THE POPES KEPT THE JEWISH LEFT UNDER CONTROL
This needs to be proclaimed outside the Angelicum and other pontifical universities where they are teaching magisterial heresy.In the past the popes kept the Jewish Left, Kabbalists, Masons, Talmudis and the rest of the bag, under control.Now it is Satan who controls the popes and the Church. There is official heresy being taught which should be identified and stopped.Catholics have a right to their identity.
-Lionel Andrades
1
2
March 21, 2017
Vatican Council II has a continuity with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus but the Angelicum hides this Catholic teaching