Chris Ferrara and Roberto Mattei like the other traditionalists accepted the heresy in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which creates a rupture with the Catechism of Pope Pius X and changes the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member...-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Even with this error they claim that they are traditionalists and not teaching any thing new. They go on to criticize the Neo Catechumenal Way and Medugorje as if they are a traditionalist cult which all must follow. They wrote books on Vatican Council II unaware that they were interpreting the Council as a rupture with the past Catechisms and the old ecclesiology only by using a false premise and then following it up with an irrational inference.
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member...-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
This is heresy.
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member...-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Even with this error they claim that they are traditionalists and not teaching any thing new. They go on to criticize the Neo Catechumenal Way and Medugorje as if they are a traditionalist cult which all must follow. They wrote books on Vatican Council II unaware that they were interpreting the Council as a rupture with the past Catechisms and the old ecclesiology only by using a false premise and then following it up with an irrational inference.
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member...-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
This is heresy.
The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) states every one needs to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation. It does not mention the baptism of desire etc as an exception.
Since the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance can only be hypothetical. They cannot be known and concrete people in our life time.This is something obvious.
They assumed that invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is irrational. How can invisible people be visible?Since the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance can only be hypothetical. They cannot be known and concrete people in our life time.This is something obvious.
Then they inferred that these 'visible' non Catholics were examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church. This is the New Theology which they and the liberals use to interpret Vatican Council II. They reject the conclusion of this fale reasoning and the liberals accept it.Both use the false premise and follow it up with the false inference to create a non traditional conclusion.
The trouble began when Archbishop Lefebvre accepted the heresy in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which became the New Theology. The error was incorporated into Vatican Council II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did not correct it.Neither did he choose to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise and inference.He consolidated the error in March 2016 ( Avvenire) and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria did the same at the Placuet Deo Press Conference on March 1, 2018.
Now even after being informed the liberals and traditionalists are not interpreting Vatican Council II rationally. For those who are aware of it and continue with the lies this would be intentional deception.It's a cover up which no one is talking about.
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member...-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
This line creates a rupture with the Catechism of Pope Pius X.
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member...-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
This line creates a rupture with the Catechism of Pope Pius X.
From the Catechism of Pope Pius X
16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said:
"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into
the Kingdom of God."
The Church in Particular
9 Q. State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church?
A. To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptised, to believe and
profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and
to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church.
24 Q. To be saved, is it enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic Church?
A. No, to be saved it is not enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic
Church; it is necessary to be a living member.
27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church,
just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah,
which was a figure of the Church.
11 Q. Who are they who are outside the true Church?
A. Outside the true Church are: Infidels, Jews, heretics, apostates,
schismatics, and the excommunicated.
13 Q. Who are the Jews?
A. The Jews are those who profess the Law of Moses; have not received
baptism; and do not believe in Jesus Christ.
14 Q. Who are heretics?
A. Heretics are those of the baptised who obstinately refuse to believe some
truth revealed by God and taught as an article of faith by the Catholic
Church; for example, the Arians, the Nestorians and the various sects of Protestants.
So the Letter(1949) suggests invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible exceptions to what the Catechism of Pope Pius X says above on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
The Letter assumes that BOD, BOB and I.I refer to known cases of someone saved outside the Church and then it infers that BOD, BOB and I.Iare exceptions to the traditional, Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.
So the Letter (1949) presents known exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors on an ecumenism of return when there are no known exceptions, there are no known cases as such.
The Letter(1949) does away with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church which is supported by the Syllabus and the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
This is a concrete error.Since without this irrationality in the Letter(1949) Vatican Council II (LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc) is not a rupture
with the the past Catechisms, the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors on ecumenism and the old ecclesiology .
Vatican Council II without this error from the Letter would be in harmony with
Feeneyite EENS, or, EENS as it was known to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century.
Feeneyite EENS, or, EENS as it was known to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century.
The Letter (1949) can be accepted in its first part which is traditional. The second part contradicts the first part. It is irrational, non traditional and heretical.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment